Guns don't kill people, American schools kill people

The NRA should update its slogan. Because it turns out they're right – people do kill people, specifically at schools right across America. By the SMH's count, the truly tragic execution of at least three Amish schoolgirls today is the third school shooting in the past week. So really, how many more people have to die before the US gets halfway sane on gun laws? Do we have to get to a half-dozen? Double figures? Come on, surely people in America aren't ignoring Michael Moore?

The alleged gunman Charles Carl Roberts had a cache with three guns – downright scary ones too, by the sounds of them. I don't really know my weapons, but "Ruger bolt-action" doesn't sound like something an "enthusiast" might need for a "hobby". (Check out this article on Bill Ruger, "America's gunmaker". What a guy.) Roberts also had a stun gun, hacksaw, pliers, tape, even a bucket for his waste... this guy was clearly not just your common-or-garden freak, but a hardcore nutjob who had planned his siege with psychotic foresight.

Last week, in Bailey, Colorado, a gunman shot a schoolgirl in quite similar circumstances, and the Roberts killing may have been a copycat incident. While on Friday, a school principal was shot dead in Wisconsin by a 15-year-old kid after being busted for having tobacco. Is this contagious, or something?

Is it too outrageous to suggest that if guns weren't readily available in most American homes, virtually none of these people would be dead? In American politics, it is, actually. But, just for argument's sake, let's look at the other arguments the gun lobby uses to defend their right to have devices that make it easy to kill people on hand.

It's a sport.

Okay, so let's just set aside the obvious point that anyone who feels that pumping bullets into living animals is a bit of fun on the weekend probably needs therapy, rather than indulgence. As someone who quite enjoys gun-based video games, and has executed many criminals in Virtua City over the years, I can understand how that's fun. But come on – play paintball, or shoot skeet or something. Go to a rifle range. And lock the guns up there, and don't have them in your house. I just can't see why even an Olympic-level shooter would need to keep guns in the home. At least out in the city.

It's for self-defence.

If people keep guns for self-defence, all that means is that burglars and so on carry guns as well. So someone who just wants to knock your house off for a heroin fix suddenly gets in a position where they might have to kill you, or be killed themselves. No-one who invades your home is going to want to add a murder rap unless they have to. I've been burgled, and really, it's not that big a deal. You just buy new stuff on insurance.

It's about liberty.

I just hate this argument, but okay. There's an idea that in America, the citizens should be able to rise up against the US Government if it were to become tyrannical. And that's why all those survivalist rednecks keep weapons handy. Where to start with this? Okay, well, let's just imagine that the US Government could actually became tyrannical. A loose collective of probably-inbred freakboys with pop-guns are hardly likely to stand up to the overwhelming military might of the US Army. (Well, except in Iraq.) The idea that lovers of liberty might band together and take back Washington for the people is just moronic. Ask anyone in Thailand whether they'd like to face down one of those tanks that's scattered across Bangkok. If America's serious about allowing its citizens to carry the means of genuinely overthrowing tyranny, you'd have to allow ole Jebus to store medium-range nuclear warheads out on that thar farm o' his.

But no. Governments regularly prevent us from keeping dangerous things for the common good. Most people are happy with that, and in a democracy, their opinion ought to count. Sure, it might be taken a little too far in some instances, such as the ban on fireworks in NSW. But does anyone genuinely think that the overwhelming good of not having schoolkids gunned down in their classrooms doesn't outweigh the right of free people to build up medium-sized arsenals in their closets?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, they do. Almost invariably with guns. Hey, if this argument worked, why don't the Republicans just give Iran and North Korea nuclear weapons? Because it's not the poor little innocent weapons themselves that are the problem, it's criminals who abuse them, isn't it? And sure, we only know that retrospectively. But it's worth it for our freedoms.

But if it's not guns that are the problem, let's look at the other common link here: schools. If American kids never attended school, there would be no way that they could possibly die in a school shooting, is there? Guns are the innocent, circumstantial victim in all this. The real villain is an educational system that brings children together in a convenient place where bad people can hurt them. Children should be home-schooled, and taught how to shoot and really, that's about it.

Ultimately, America is deeply, deeply ill. A culture of gun violence is deeply ingrained in the American psyche that extreme measures are necessary to cure it, but they'll never be taken. Today's tragedy shows that even the reclusive Amish, who do their level best to pretend it's the seventeeth century, can't escape it.
Dominic Knight

Posted
October 3, 2006 2:33 PM

LATEST COMMENTS

Dom - I am convinced there is some sort of online promotion going on, that we are not yet aware of. Maybe it is in the same vein as the Pepsi Max "Million Points for a Fighter Jet" from a few years back, where if you have a big enough bloodbath in a US School you win something - a ride on Richard Branson's spaceship, perhaps?

Be patient: I'm sure it will all be revealed in good time.

Posted by: Donnie Mountjoy on October 3, 2006 3:02 PM

We have gun laws. What's the difference in having it anyway, there's so many knives and gun attacks here even with the laws.?

It's sad but true.

Posted by: pointer on October 3, 2006 3:20 PM

Well I reckon that instead of profiling people of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern apearance, the police should be targeting docile family types who keep themselves to themselves, converse politely with their neighbours and play quietly with their kids. They always turn out to be homicidal monsters.

Posted by: sian on October 3, 2006 3:32 PM

It's funny in a dark and bleak way, that a nation that can't keep the peace at home expects the world to believe it can do so in Iraq and that other place they no longer mention on the news. It's funny that the US argues it needs guns to protect themselves but I'm yet to see reports of people shooting back at their attackers. The abundance of guns in the US did nothing to stop 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 3, 2006 3:40 PM

Is that like the one where running over a little old lady gets you 100 points? I've always wondered where I could cash mine in.

Posted by: grumnut on October 3, 2006 3:55 PM

I almost skittled a Mormon missionary on a bicycle yesterday when the idiot rode straight out in front of my car. How many points are they worth?

Posted by: cynic on October 3, 2006 4:54 PM

What exactly does America and its gun laws, or lack thereof, have to do with us? The quicker they pick each other off, the better the world will be for the rest of us. Its like assisted-Darwinism.

If all the guns were kept at the rifle/shooting clubs, wouldn't crooks break into them and steal 100s or 1000s of guns, instead of just one or two? Most clubs are small operations, run by volunteers, in sparsely populated regions- hardly sounds like a Fort Knox operation to me.

Australia has reasonably good firearm regulations. They are not perfect, and could be improved in many areas, either in strictness or efficency/commonsense, but generally they are effective. All firearms must be registered, kept in approved and police-inspected safes, and have the bolts (if fitted) and ammunition kept in separate secure storage.
To get a licence, one must be a memeber of an approved and recognised club/organisation,have a police background search conducted, and have undergone an approved safety/competency training course.
In Australia, self defence is not a valid reason to get a firearm/licence, and it is not a constitutional right to own one, but it is a legitimate sport, with an almost impeccable safety record, which is something that very few other sports can claim.

Posted by: HoJu on October 3, 2006 6:28 PM

Damn i hate america. what america needs is more guns and more bombs and hopefully the country will soon cease to exist. Murder in America shouldn't be a crime.

Posted by: jaclyn on October 3, 2006 7:08 PM

The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt. -Rene Descartes

Dominic,

Your last entry exudes moral outrage that such a thing could happen in our world, which is commendable. As usually occurs with a tragedy or something we cannot understand, we look at first for a scapegoat. A convenient scapegoat in this case is of course the ready availability of guns.

Now normally Id like to debate you on the merits of your argument but Im sad to say youve given none. Youve not supplied us with the current status of the US gun laws and which laws you would recommend changing. Youve just said guns need to be less readily available Which guns should be restricted and which regulations should be tightened?

I would like to take on some of your purported reasoning from the gun lobby and play a little devils advocate in order to get some debate going. To begin with however, Id like to take some of your opening salvos to task.

You mention Michael Moore and link to his Bowling for Columbine movie site. This is the movie in which Moore takes on the gun question. This is a movie I have seen more than once and I have to say that Moore is a little confused in his message: He obviously feels that gun laws must be restricted in the US but goes on to mention that Canada has just as lax gun laws as the US with exponentially less murders, even per capita. One could argue from here that the problem in America with violence does not lie with ready availability of guns.

You say I don't really know my weapons, but "Ruger bolt-action" doesn't sound like something an "enthusiast" might need for a "hobby". Bolt-action merely refers to the bolt action method of loading the round into the firing chamber. It may sound a little scary to someone who doesnt know anything about weapons but its pretty standard for a rifle.
I have no idea why you might have put this half chewed thought into your article but I would suggest omitting tidbits like this in the future as it does nothing for your argument.

Next your ask us Is it too outrageous to suggest that if guns weren't readily available in most American homes, virtually none of these people would be dead? In American politics, it is, actually. The gun lobby is indeed a strong one in the US. But they have never had a major motion picture made for their cause nor do they have the bulk of the outspoken Hollywood celebrities (Charlton Heston aside) behind them. Its a typical reaction to believe that your side of an argument is under represented and vice versa.

Now onto the counterpoints:
1. It's a sport: Many people hunt animals for sport thats true. Its a debate for another topic though so Id just say if you dont understand it then try reading Go down, Moses by William Faulkner.
2. It's for self-defence: If you cannot recognize that having a gun would be an advantage in self defence then there is no way I can explain it to you.
3. It's about liberty: I hate this argument rednecks and freakboys are key words in your argument here. Lots of emotions and little logic. You judge those with alternate opinions to yours without knowing anything about them except their argument. Im not a redneck. I live in Sydney and have done my whole life so maybe you will hear me when I tell you that you have already delivered the counterpoint to your own argument: Iraq.
The truth is that a large and powerful army is not well equipped to fight a local insurrection. This is something the US used to their advantage in the war of independence and something they should have learned from Vietnam. The might of a large army is actually a hindrance in fighting local guerrillas. The Guerrillas live in the community whilst the siege army must sleep in bivouac, forever unsure who the enemy is.

This is the reason the reason for the troubles in the Iraq war and the reason for the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers knew this and wanted to protect the people from the government. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the saying goes. Keep the bastards honest as Don would say.

4. Look, we're just borderline psychos whose gun fetishes compensate for our general feelings of inadequacy, ok?: I could say that those who support tougher gun laws are simply lazy hippies who would rather smoke pot than shove a hang grenade up Bin Ladens clacker but that would just be attacking the opponent instead of his argument. Argue dont name-call. (If you want more on the advent of name-calling in modern debate type the day intellectuals became lazy into google)

Im happy to concede that tougher Gun laws may help but not without some sort of emotionally neutral and sound argument. Ill leave you with some fud for thought: Has the ban on recreational drugs stopped people from using them?

Posted by: Cartman on October 3, 2006 7:39 PM

Don't worry about the US winning the war on terror. The US people is at war with itself, armed to the teeth for the purpose and with enough anger and craziness for a motive even if it makes no sense. Foreign terrorists are no threat by comparison.

If you are an angry, crazy, armed loser, just go to a school and kill some kids - that'll show em. Better if the victims are all girls and better still if they belong to a pacifist religion and don't participate in the modern world.

America - land of hope and freedom to kill.

Posted by: righteous on October 3, 2006 8:57 PM

This article was both denegrating and ignorant. First, the Amish, and any people, have a right to live how the want. Second, the American Military, when misdirected by political/imperial interests, is increasingly, a paper tiger. If the current trend in the US continues, and our rights descend even below those of the average Aussie, then even the Amish will take up arms.

Posted by: JoeUsa on October 3, 2006 10:46 PM

Seems to me as a casual (and somewhat concerned) observer that the problem is not so much guns (though that doesn't help) but that the dominant American psyche seems to be that if something bad happens, you can solve it with violence.

9/11 was something very bad. So retaliation against Afghanistan and Iraq was the solution. Not that they were the cause.

This guy who shot the Amish kids apparently has some issue that goes back 20 years, and the shootings were "retaliation". Again, the solution has only the barest of links (in this case if any at all) to the cause. These kids did something to him 20 years ago?

It seems it doesn't matter who actually did the bad thing, if you retaliate against someone, using the most violent means you can muster, then you will have taught the perpetrator a lesson.

A scary thought indeed.

Posted by: Sweetybytch on October 3, 2006 10:49 PM

Are we not guilty of over generalising here? We're talking about a handful of shootings like this amongst a population of almost 300 Million. I'm seeing a lot of generalisations about Americans here from people who sound like they have never been to the US.

Let's just go a little easy on the hyperbole and the "Think of the children!" freak outs. Is it possible that every now and then crazy people just go crazy and there's not much we can do about it?

Sweetybytch: How many Americans do you actually know? In my job I come into contact with Americans every day, I've travelled through the US to the "Redneck" areas like Kentucky and hung out with the gun nuts. They have shot guns in the back of their pick ups and an arsenal in their house to put Arnie to shame. Yet they are kind people who are full of hospitality and warmth. They are just as dumbfounded by these shootings as we are.

Let's think before we blog kids.

Posted by: Cartman on October 3, 2006 11:57 PM

Sorry Joe,

You caught an ugly side of Australia in action. We like to think we're super relaxed top people but in reality we bitch about every other country on the planet.

We're happy to take things you've given us for granted, such as the car, a large chunk of our democratic system, electricity and the internet we're using to voice these ideas, and just bitch about how awful Americans are.

We neglect the fact that if the US hadn't stood up to the British 230 years ago we wouldn't have the easy freedom we have today.

Neat huh? Actually I kind of envy them. Guns = Bad. America = Bad. It's a great way to be because there's no grey area where you actually have to think about issues and make up your own mind about something.

America has it's skeletons just like any other country but I for one wouldn't want to throw that baby out with the bath water.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 12:17 AM

Cartman,

Thank you for your kind words.

The death of these children is tragic beyond words. How some of the commenters here could make light of it is disgusting.

To those that imply that if guns were illegal this would not have happened, I reply violent predators such as the piece of filth that committed these crimes have no compunction against breaking the law, including those against owning weapons.

The simple truth is that evil exists. Violent criminals exist. A firearm and the skill and will to use it is the most effective means of defense that a person can have to protect themselves from violent criminal predation. Unless you believe like the author

"No-one who invades your home is going to want to add a murder rap unless they have to. I've been burgled, and really, it's not that big a deal."

Blaming the victim for the violent choices of criminals is despicable.

Posted by: Jeff Reid, MA, USA on October 4, 2006 1:33 AM

And I pity ignorant fools who hate people just because of their own prejudices. You are an idiot.

Posted by: Bill on October 4, 2006 2:47 AM

"Woman uses gun to scare off rapist...no one hurt" is not sensational enough to make news and the national/international media simply doesn't want to report it when guns ARE used in self defense...else how could they keep sheep like you defenseless and compliant?

The Pearl Harbor reference is simply retarded. The 9/11 hijackers staged their attacks from commercial airliners for a reason. The same reason that mass murderers like schools as their targets. Can you say "Gun Free Zone"?. What that means is that the bad guys know that they are the only ones armed.

It's just sad that decendents of the independent, self-reliant people that inhabited Australia long ago would devolve to this sorry state of affairs. Where's Crocodile Dundee when you need him? Oh yeah...the coppers shot him when he wouldn't give up his guns.

Posted by: Curtis Stone on October 4, 2006 3:08 AM

This article is full of ignorance, shallow reasoning and sophomoric attempts to make light of tragic events of which the author knows less than nothing. I have met a lot of Australians and found them to be fine, friendly, reasonable people, to the point of forgetting your stereotypical image here in the US as foolish, immature and backwards. This article reminds me that the stereotype has a basis in fact. I guess some of you fit that stereotype and, in fact, beg for your chains, pathetic.

Posted by: Bill on October 4, 2006 3:09 AM

9/11 happened on a damn airplane where guns are banned. it also happend in new york. where guns are also banned. People had been arguing for years that airplane pilots should be allowed to be armed. Think terrorists could take over the plan with a razorblade if the pilot was armed?
You're an ignorant idiot. Read a little before posting stupid comments.

Posted by: daniel on October 4, 2006 3:33 AM

Roberts, who had no criminal record, was home-schooled. His father is a retired police man and his mother works at a Christian Theatre. He came from a nice family and had a nice family. It has been reported that the motivation to this tragedy was sexual in nature. Guns are not the problem as much as the saturation of modern society by Pornography is the problem. It's ruining lives and causing addicted, sick, eventually obsessed individuals to act out and lose control. "Governments regularly prevent us from keeping dangerous things for the common good." Well the 'Governments' need to acknowledge the damage being done to society by the Pornographic industry and recognize the ripple effect it is having on our culture. People fight to protect the environment, the wildlife, save the earth for future generations to enjoy. What about the civilization those future generations will be living in? The 60's are over, the sexual revolution has been warped out of all proportion and the resulting pornography is ruining lives.

Also, you make so many clueless generalizations about America/Americans in your article I must assume that you have never established a genuine friendship/relationship with any multi-generational, non-fanatical, average American. You are very much off base and clearly influenced by biased exploitive media. Perhaps you should turn off "Jerry Springer".

Posted by: Giny on October 4, 2006 6:57 AM

Thanks Jeff,

I was very surprised by the comments making light of the issue too. The fact is that they don't really give a stuff about the victims and just want another excuse to belittle people they know nothing about. Dominic Knight included.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 8:54 AM

Cartman, since when did the septics give us the car?

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 10:03 AM

Dominic-

We hear this crap all day, every day from the anti-gun loonies in the US who think that if all the weapons are taken away, all the psychopaths and criminals magically become nice, decent people.

England banned handguns, yet crime is up and there is *still* crime with guns. Apparently "knife" crime is a now serious problem. Explain that one.

A nation simply can't prevent every tragedy. But there are those that ignorantly think that by passing laws, somehow those tragedies will cease. The only thing you can do is prepare for them and be ready to fight back. For those who don't wish to fight back, that's their choice. For those that want to fight back, that's OUR choice. No one and no gov't can better protect me and my family than ME.

Here in America we don't want to live in a socialist state that you envision. I don't want to live in a country that tells you that you can't own guns to protect yourself and family, that you can't smoke, that you can eat foods with trans fats, etc., etc. It's always for "the better good", but in the end the citizens have done nothing but given up their freedoms.

Is murder a problem? Sure, in the inner cities with fatherless families, no values, no respect, plentiful drugs, gang warfare, etc. But would it surprise you that in areas of the USA (rural) where private citizens are heavily armed there is very little crime and murder?

We value our guns because we value our freedom and individuality. Every day law-abiding US citizens use their own firearms to protect themselves from criminals and psychos. But unfortunately you never read about them in our leftist national news organizations. To them guns are EVIL...no good can come from owning them.

Guns are the only thing weve got left should society every fall apart, due to a terrorist nuclear attack, a natural disaster, or the installment of a fascist regime. Dont think a band of armed men could fight a more powerful army? Read about guerilla warfare. Read about the Vietnam War. Read about the Afghan resistance to Russia. Read about the militias during the American Revolutionary War. The list goes on.

Son, it's apparent from your article you haven't been in this world for very long. You haven't studied history and you don't do research. You havent been a victim of violent crime and you dont have a family to think about. Like 10 million other bloggers and internet writers, you have a keyboard and internet connection and you can blab all you want about stuff about which you know very little.

For the sake of your country, I hope youre not representative of Aussie males. If so, Im hopping on the next plane to Sydney. Because everyones a girl.

Jason

Posted by: Jason on October 4, 2006 10:24 AM

face facts guys, having a gun in your house poses far more danger to you and your family than it does to your average thief (who will now arm themselves because they know their victim is more likely to be armed)

A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

Want to feel safe at night? Sleep with a baseball bat next to your bed. Your kid's far less likely to accidentally blow their brains out when playing with it and your teenage son is far less likely to take it to school to get some payback if Betty-Sue has knocked back his invite to the prom.

The American people kill ten times more of their own people each and every year with their own guns than Osama was able to kill with his terrible actions. Do yourselves a favour and just friggin stop it, it is really stupid. Fair enough have guns and go sport shooting, but keep them under lock and key at a club and for god's sake make them a bit harder to buy. You shouldn't be able to walk into a Kmart and walk out with a weapon that can drop an elephant.

Aussies don't dislike the American people as a rule, we just think you have some crazy gun laws that are allowing too many people to die unnecessarily.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 10:32 AM

I think the real issue here is the ongoing continuation that is de sensitising us to the horror. we should be outraged that this has happened because it can and does happen everywhere!
what can prevent it? nothing. everyday children are being brought up in homes with parents who don't care and these children are not being taught right from wrong. it's ok to use violence because mum and dad do. anger and resentment at not having what some one else has soon explodes. it may be as simple as stealing to get it but it will escalate to stealing with violence. then there is the drugging of 'difficult' children to control them. this leads to mental problems in later life where this difficult adult can no longer be helped by the public health system. i speak from experience. left to their own devices well, bad things happen.
think of the children they are our only hope.

Posted by: reny on October 4, 2006 10:55 AM

I think that fact that gunfire and pressurised cabins at 20 000 feet dont really mix could have something to do with this one.....
goose.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 11:13 AM

Cartman - starting with your last point first - if the ban on recreational drugs has not stopped people taking them, then might it not have least reduced the taking of the drugs? Murder is outlawed but obviously still occurs. Is it likely that there might be more murders if it were legal?

Secondly - I would like you to explain how having a firearm provides for your self-defence. If your attacker also has a gun, and you pull yours out, isn't it conceivable that the attacker might panic and shoot, when he otherwise might not have done so? How likely are you to be attacked such that you might need a gun anyhow. Might be if you are a security guard, I'm assuming you're not.

That self-defence argument is bought and sold in the US where at it achieves is a lot more shooting than where gun ownership is much more restricted. Most shootings are in the home between relatives or friends - you need to defend yourself against yours?

Just how does gun ownership protect citizens against the government in the US or anywhere else? Most coups/revolutions are either military ones or through people-power where an armed citizenry was not a factor in the success. Where armed insurgencies occur eg in Sri Lanka, Timor etc they are ultimately resolved through peace talks, not shooting. The organisations concerned are not citizens with legal weapons, they are outlaws arming themselves however they can - nothing to do with the private gun ownership argument.

Are you really saying that private gun ownership 'keeps the bastards honest'? How so?

Liberty - do we really need to go over the 'for the greater good' argument? It's chrystal clear that countries with high gun-ownership rates have also a high shooting rates. Fewer guns, fewer shootings, it's that simple. My freedom not to be shot is more important than your freedom to own a gun.

Shooting for sport - good luck selling that one to the majority of us who don't support hunting or shooting as a sport.

Posted by: righteous on October 4, 2006 11:31 AM

Jason, you wouldn't like it here. Our power crazy government have these oppressive laws that say you can't marry your sister - even if she's real purty.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 11:33 AM

Mick Dundee didn't need a gun, he had his knife.

I love how so many loopy guncrazed yanks have come out of the woodwork to entertain us with their "you're either with us or you're against us mentality". Nice work Dom.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 11:40 AM

and miss hearing nonsensical rants like your's.

no sir, it wasn't the gun in Dad's closet that allowed me to rob the liquor store and kill that shopkeeper. It was the titty mag that I found in his shed...

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 11:56 AM

better buy a gun then, in case these folk decide to break into my house when they're high in drugs and pornography.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 11:59 AM

Two words: natural selection. If theyre too stupid to see how theyre god-given right to bear arms is intrinsically linked to their staggering murder rate, than who are we to stop them?

I for one, am glad I live in Australia: were not a perfect society by any stretch of the imagination but if somebody wants to commit a crime, I now its that much harder for them to do it with a gun.

Posted by: Gwen on October 4, 2006 12:20 PM

So the pilot shots the terrorist and what, the bullet magically stops right there and I'm the ignorant idiot? Try reading about ballistics and the effects of cabin depresurisation on a plane in flight you utter moron.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 4, 2006 12:46 PM

Great to know you're out there, Jason, ready to protect us all when the terrorist nuclear Islamofascists try to take our freedom & our individuality away.

Now, how about you go & shave the palms of your hands.

Posted by: sian on October 4, 2006 12:55 PM

Righteous,

"starting with your last point first - if the ban on recreational drugs has not stopped people taking them, then might it not have least reduced the taking of the drugs? Murder is outlawed but obviously still occurs. Is it likely that there might be more murders if it were legal?"

Are there less murders since murder has been illegal? It's a cliche but outlawing guns means only outlaws have them. Making recreational drugs illegal may have stopped more people from using them but it has also meant that due to lack of correct information people have used them less responsibly.

It's also made the drugs themselves more dangerous as there are no laws governing quality. If someone plans to kill then obtaining a weapon is not going to be a problem, legal or illegal.

This man stewed on this for many years before commiting the crime. Plenty of time to stock up illegal firearms. Illegal trade invariably leads to splinter criminal activity (sex slavery and violent gang clashes for drugs)and if you outlaw weapons you will end up with more of the same.

If you don't believe me let's look at a real life example. The UK gun laws make it practically impossible to purchase a gun there. Ask anyone who lives in Hackney wick or Brixton if they think their streets would have less guns on them if the laws were relaxed and you would get a resounding no. There is already a flood of illegal guns and brutal improvised weapons.

"Secondly - I would like you to explain how having a firearm provides for your self-defence. If your attacker also has a gun, and you pull yours out, isn't it conceivable that the attacker might panic and shoot, when he otherwise might not have done so? How likely are you to be attacked such that you might need a gun anyhow. Might be if you are a security guard, I'm assuming you're not. "

I thought it was a given fact that if you are better armed you are better equipped in a conflict. If I'm a burglar and I know that an entire city sleeps with a gun under their pillow, would I not want to look for a softer, lower risk target?

"That self-defence argument is bought and sold in the US where at it achieves is a lot more shooting than where gun ownership is much more restricted. Most shootings are in the home between relatives or friends - you need to defend yourself against yours?"

Most intentional murders are between family and friends regardless of the weapon. This is due to normal human sociology. We hang out with our family and friends more and hence they are more likely to come into conflict with us.

"Just how does gun ownership protect citizens against the government in the US or anywhere else? Most coups/revolutions are either military ones or through people-power where an armed citizenry was not a factor in the success. Where armed insurgencies occur eg in Sri Lanka, Timor etc they are ultimately resolved through peace talks, not shooting. The organisations concerned are not citizens with legal weapons, they are outlaws arming themselves however they can - nothing to do with the private gun ownership argument."

For arguments sake I'll grant you "Most coups/revolutions are either military ones or through people-power where an armed citizenry was not a factor in the success" but that's MOST, not ALL. It doesn't counter my argument that an armed citizenry can uproot a despotic regime.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
--George Washington

Essentially what Mr. Washington was saying is that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. You cannot let yourself get into a situation where the government has complete control over you. If they go too far the citizens must be able to oust them. Hence the 2nd amendment.

"Liberty - do we really need to go over the 'for the greater good' argument? It's chrystal clear that countries with high gun-ownership rates have also a high shooting rates. Fewer guns, fewer shootings, it's that simple. My freedom not to be shot is more important than your freedom to own a gun. "

The liberty thing was about freedom from an opressive government. I think you're a little confused. But please share the stats that say "Fewer guns, fewer shootings" or even better: Fewer guns, fewer murders and then we can talk about it.

"Shooting for sport - good luck selling that one to the majority of us who don't support hunting or shooting as a sport." It's not my job to sell that to you. I don't hunt for sport myself (nor do I eat meat for that matter) but I believe that if you take a liberty off someone for the good of all then you had best be the one justifying it.

Thanks Righteous - I look forward to your response.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 1:01 PM

Google Henry Ford.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 1:11 PM

And just what is your holier-than-thou murder rate Gwen??? But I thought guns were taken out of the equation. Oh, you forgot that criminals dont obey gun laws much less any law.

You think a gun ban or similar legislation would make a potential murderer willingly give up his gun for sake of the law?

Posted by: Stan on October 4, 2006 1:11 PM

The character Mick Dundee was based on a man who died at the hands of police refusing to give up his guns. LOOK IT UP. What would make a man so passionate? It's liberty.

Posted by: Stan on October 4, 2006 1:16 PM

That large chunk of our democratic system is actually British. So is the inventor of the internet.

Posted by: what did the Romans give us? on October 4, 2006 1:27 PM

From what I have read - which is all I know like most people - there's a few concerns that predate when gun control might have remedied the situation.

It sounds fairly likely that an undiagnosed psychosis arose from an undiscovered crime.

He hasn't been described as a loner or looney. How did he avoid detection or suspicion whilst making preparations for the horrific intention ?

Who gives a shit if he got his weapon of choice over the counter or after a prolonged background and reference check ?

Posted by: SC on October 4, 2006 1:29 PM

Google 'Westminster System of Goverernment'

Posted by: actonb on October 4, 2006 1:50 PM

Well by that reasoning we should legalise heroin, murder and rape.
We should also allow every country to have as many nukes/bio and chem weapons. After all rogue states don't obey the law either.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 4, 2006 1:57 PM

From the Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html)

On an international level, Australia's homicide rate in 1997/8 was:

* twice the rate in Japan;
* slightly higher than the rate in England and Wales and Germany;
* similar to the rate in Canada and NZ; and
* almost a quarter of the rate in the United States.

I think the point that most of the legislation is that the less guns available to a population, the less crime involving guns will occur. It's true that criminals don't obey gun laws - but at least here they don't have such ease of access to their weapon of choice.

Posted by: actonb on October 4, 2006 1:59 PM

Try Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz you fool.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 2:07 PM

You're right Cartman: That wicked, evil Domonic Knight and his readers. They don't give a stuff about the victims. They didnt know them, or their families. Just like none of us knew most of the other 154,998 people who died in other parts of the world that day.

You've mistakenly blogged onto a self-help group of people who are trying to wean ourselves off of the need to feel mass hysteria the media seems to think we need to express each time someone famous or young dies. It all started back in 1997 with that pesky Diana woman. We hit a bit of a stumbling block a few weeks back when two Australian Icons died with a week of one another, but things are getting back to normal now.

If you & Jeff feel the need to grieve for a total stranger, apparently a fellow died in a motorcycle accident on the Far North Coast last night. Maybe the Boston Herald has a blog site where you two can get together and celebrate his life there...

Posted by: Killjoy on October 4, 2006 2:10 PM

Who cares about the crims, if they want guns they will get guns. I am glad guns are harder to come by here as it means that a depressed person will find it harder to pop themselves off; an annoyed husband in a moment of blind fury can't easily easily shoot his wife and kids in a rage; an annoyed school kid go to school and blast away at the local tuck shop; and we can't forget about those other odd times such as when Uncle Bob forgot his keys and tried to break into his own house after a few too many beers at the pub and Aunty May accident shoots him thinking he is an intruder.
It is not the armed crims most people have to worry about, its the armed people that they know that are more of a danger.
Australians are generally as paranoid about the world as the Americans so having tight gun laws is a good thing and it contributes to feeling that we are lucky to live in such a safe place.

Posted by: Mark on October 4, 2006 2:11 PM

I don't see any stats on this blog about the murder rate in the USA compared to the murder rate here in Canada. Hello everyone my name is J*hn Ems*ie.
In Canada there is about one tenth the population of the USA squeezed within the first 200 miles - our most southerly border that we share. Let's say there is 50,000 murders by firearms in the USA per year. That would be about 5000 murders by firearms per year in Canada, eh?
Or would you Aussies say that there was 50,000 murders per year in the USA, of which all of them were commited by humans? Murder is murder but let us talk about the amount of murder in Australia last year. I assume you understand that we need to know how those murders of yours were committed and if indeed it was humans that did the deed.
Then I want you to pull some more stats. This time compare the rate of murder in Australia for the previous forty years on a year by year basis. Once that is finished why not see how things have come about since more strict limits were put on the availability of a ready firearm.
I really don't care much for your synopsis or if you find a corralary. You could even extropolate for all I give a flying fig about. Myself and many others have fought a foe that knows no reason and tracks a record of lying for atleast the last 10 years as they were shipping for delivery a rancid product aimed at only only one target and that was us: the law-abiding Canadian gun owner. Laws were forced through both houses by lobby groups with their master-hoodwinkery of the huddled masses. We were harrassed by corrupt police, corrupt officials, and "Know-Not" (nice) people of all manner.
I still got me guns. Guns given me by family. The Coalition for Gun Control has burned up over two billion dollars from the federal treasury and all to show for it was a registered owner with registered guns - fully licensed under the laws the gun banners worked so hard to force on us - went to a school and shot and killed while there.
Possibly the province of Quebec, PEI maybe, and there might have been another one too but who cares? could possibly field a prosecutor working with a failed cop and court bring forth a charge against an unregistered firearm owner in Canada.
I am no studier of all things Australian. But I bet I know who lives in a city and knows no other way. And that would be the same here in Canada: Metro Fool

Posted by: SK***ter BOI**erte on October 4, 2006 2:27 PM

that's what you gun toting nutjobs just can't seem to get into your heads. Anyone who owns a gun is a potential murderer,all it takes is something to make them snap and they have the potential to start shooting. If the same person, who is normally a law abiding citizen, doesn't own a gun, the worst they can do is throw punches or throw a chair or just go generally apeshit. The cops will be able to sort them out without it escallating too badly.

Most murders aren't premeditated, they happen in the heat of the moment and if you don't have access to a gun in the heat of the moment there's less chance of someone ending up dead and more chance of someone ending up with a black eye.

Of course your career criminals will always live outside the law and be able to access guns. These people tend to kill other career criminals, let the police worry about them, that's their job.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 2:34 PM

Google Diesel and Magna Carta.

Posted by: Blondie on October 4, 2006 2:49 PM

Son, I am sure that is what David Koresh thought when he armed himself and his posse.

Posted by: Mark on October 4, 2006 3:00 PM

Cartman - starting with your last point first - if the ban on recreational drugs has not stopped people taking them, then might it not have least reduced the taking of the drugs? Murder is outlawed but obviously still occurs. Is it likely that there might be more murders if it were legal?

Secondly - I would like you to explain how having a firearm provides for your self-defence. If your attacker also has a gun, and you pull yours out, isn't it conceivable that the attacker might panic and shoot, when he otherwise might not have done so? How likely are you to be attacked such that you might need a gun anyhow. Might be if you are a security guard, I'm assuming you're not.

That self-defence argument is bought and sold in the US where at it achieves is a lot more shooting than where gun ownership is much more restricted. Most shootings are in the home between relatives or friends - you need to defend yourself against yours?

Just how does gun ownership protect citizens against the government in the US or anywhere else? Most coups/revolutions are either military ones or through people-power where an armed citizenry was not a factor in the success. Where armed insurgencies occur eg in Sri Lanka, Timor etc they are ultimately resolved through peace talks, not shooting. The organisations concerned are not citizens with legal weapons, they are outlaws arming themselves however they can - nothing to do with the private gun ownership argument.

Are you really saying that private gun ownership 'keeps the bastards honest'? How so?

Liberty - do we really need to go over the 'for the greater good' argument? It's chrystal clear that countries with high gun-ownership rates have also a high shooting rates. Fewer guns, fewer shootings, it's that simple. My freedom not to be shot is more important than your freedom to own a gun.

Shooting for sport - good luck selling that one to the majority of us who don't support hunting or shooting as a sport.

Posted by: righteous on October 4, 2006 3:16 PM

The Magna Carta is a bit over GWB's head. I mean the idea that no man shall be taken, punished or otherwise destroyed except by the lawful judgement of his peers is a bit out there isn't it.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen one on October 4, 2006 3:56 PM

Having a gun doesn't make you free. It just makes you dangerous. Ghandi didn't need guns, Australia didn't need guns to get it's independence. I am free because I say I am free and I behave accordingly. I don't need a gun to have the confidence to be free.

Posted by: Mathew on October 4, 2006 4:04 PM

it's a movie you friggin nutjob.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 4:18 PM

Funny thing was, Koresh and pals had less guns per capita than the Teaxn average.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen one on October 4, 2006 4:22 PM

Yeah, getting a gun in Australia is hard. A friend took me to a gun club open day a few years ago - the paperwork just to get in the door was amazing, you had to watch a half hour safety video, and the guns were kept in the hands of the volunteers every second you weren't actually shooting. We inquired about joining - about a thousand dollars up front in fees and mandatory training sessions, with a six-month commitment to classes once a week, no skipping or you forfeit the lot, plus all the other regulations... too much effort!

Posted by: marissa on October 4, 2006 4:37 PM

You are clearly the kind of person who should not have access to a butter knife let alone a gun.

Glad you mentioned Canada though, it appears the rate of ownership of hand guns in Canada is waaaaaaaaaaay lower than the USA. It is handguns that are used in the vast majority of murders as they are of course more easily concealed than your average hunting rifle or shotgun.

Posted by: Sean on October 4, 2006 4:37 PM

A point which hasn't been made yet is the ease with which guns enable would-be mass-murderers to go about their business.

Does anybody recall a mass-slaying by knife or baseball bat?

No. They are all undertaken by people armed with guns, usually of the automatic or semi-automatic variety.

If you remove such guns from people, murders will still occur, but it will make such obcenities as Port Arthur almost extinct.

And that has to be a plus, surely?

Posted by: His Lordship on October 4, 2006 4:39 PM

Our system of government is based partly on Westminster and partly on the US system. That's unless we have a house of Lords I don't know about.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 5:07 PM

Sean,

I was more referring to the perfection of the mass production system which allowed us all to have cars.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 5:09 PM

I thought it was sad that the girls had to be killed for no reason. That's the first opinion Ive given on the subject. My initial post was to attack the leap in logic that I felt was behind Mr. Knights article.

You've obviously posted with your pet peeve in mind and not the content of my post. Its another fine example of attacking the opponent in an argument rather than their argument.

It's a fine way to live as it means you never have to take anyone elses opinion into consideration.

My comment was an attack on the broad assumptions that many people make on the character of those with pro-gun views. Using terms like redneck when they would be the first to criticize someone for using generalizations based on race or gender.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 5:24 PM

Google electricity.

Posted by: cynic on October 4, 2006 5:32 PM

Sean, I love the fact that you attack the person and not the argument. Allow me to try as it looks fun: Are you that much of an intellectual baby that you can't find fault in someones argument then point it out to them or alternatively find no fault and accept what they have to say?

That's called debate and it means we all get smarter.

You obviously didn't even read what Curtis had to say as it was nothing of the "you're either with us or you're against us mentality" sort.

Now how about you look up dialectic and grow up a little bit.

Yes that felt good. Looking forward to your next malapropos offering.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 5:33 PM

Sorry to disagree yet again about an off topic item but explosive decompression takes a lot more than a gun of even .45 calibre. That only happens in movies.

Posted by: Cartman on October 4, 2006 5:36 PM

Have you ever heard of "cognitive dissonance"?

It's where what you are doing doesn't work, so you do it some more. As in we have speeding laws, and people still speed, so let's have MORE laws against speeding, or, in this context, the gun laws we have didn't work, so let's have some more restrictions.

How did this sociopath manage to perform his evil deeds? Listen carefully, IT WAS BECAUSE NO-ONE HAD THE TOOLS TO STOP HIM.

Most schools in the US are "gun-free zones", and guess what, only the law-breakers have guns there: talk about a victim-rich environment.

And before someone starts spouting about "violence only begets violence", it should. It should be every parent's goal in this sort of situation: to ensure that the sociopath's violent behaviour begets him more violence than he can handle. It's for the children, after all.

Posted by: Anonymous on October 4, 2006 7:14 PM

Sean-

[that's what you gun toting nutjobs just can't seem to get into your heads. Anyone who owns a gun is a potential murderer].

So is anyone who owns a car, owns a cutlery set, owns materials to make a pipe bomb, owns a saw, a hammer, a machete, etc., etc. We're all potential murderers. Really clueless. You would do well living in a Communist countries China and Cuba.

His Lordship-

For some reason people always forget to quote the instances where good, decent people use guns to *save* lives, namely their own. You have dig, but they're out there (at least in America). Of course in England and Australia, if some deranged psycho kicks down your door with a machete, all you can do is run. Or pray. Or fight back with a broom.

Sian-

I'm not here to save you, only me and my family. When the criminals, terrorists, and whatever other maniacs come slithering into your neighborhood, they'll come after you first. Why? Because you're clueless AND defenseless. Predators always go after the weak.

Posted by: Jason on October 4, 2006 8:27 PM

Actually, according to the Home Office, violent crime has fallen by 43% since its peak in 1995 and has remained relatively stable since 2000.

Explain how knife crime is a serious problem? Well I don't know exactly, but I know that they aren't as strictly regulated as guns...is that running counter to your argument?

No one thinks increasing gun laws will make gun crime extinct. So why are you jumping to that conclusion.We are just saying that tighter gun controls could reduce harm.

No one can protect your family better than you? how about someone with a bigger, better gun? oh dear, getting silly now...arguing with crazies does that to me...

Posted by: Pedant on October 4, 2006 10:46 PM

"Titty Mags"? This man was way beyond titty mags:

"Charles Carl Roberts IV appeared intent on transforming a one-room Amish schoolhouse into a torture chamber of sexual abuse, but apparently panicked when police arrived, shooting dead five young girls before killing himself."

"Roberts had no criminal record and displayed no hint of inner torment in the days before the killings, even as he was methodically assembling an assault kit that included knives, a stun gun, makeshift shackles and sexual lubricant, a product that "has no exact (purpose) other than the potential for a sexual assault aide."

Were this only about guns he could have just stood in a field and picked the girls off. This was NOT about guns. He did not use his gun to "rob a liquor store". He used his gun to intimidate and murder small children with the intent of fulfilling his deviant sexual fantasies. Check out the contents of his duffel bag. Do you believe it reasonable to suggest this man was not involved in, and influenced by, pornography?

Posted by: Giny on October 4, 2006 11:18 PM

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Mohandas Gandhi

Posted by: 45superman on October 5, 2006 1:45 AM

Cabin depressurization? Kids, read more textbooks and watch fewer motion pictures, please: even several shots through the hull of a pressurized airplane do not result in the kind of dramatic event portrayed by Hollywood. The pressure differential's tiny and the metal's tough.

The experiment's been done. Many times. What happens is, cabin pressure drops, rather slowly. That's all. Why d'ye think big passenger planes have those little drop-down oxygen masks? They wouldn't do a bit of good against explosive decompression; a fast or slow leak is what they'll save you from.

Oh, yeah, one more thing happens when a gun is fired inside a pressurized airplane cabin: if there happens to be a knife-weilding hijacker in the path of said bullet, he is stopped. This is generally thought of as a good thing. You're of a different opinion about that?

As for other possible ill effects of gunfire in planes -- like hitting hydraulic control lines and other such -- who would you better trust to know where not to point a gun than a pilot or flight engineer? (Control systems on passenger-rated commercial aircraft are duplicate at minimum, by the way). If you're still worried, consider frangible rounds: good enough to stop a bad guy but they puff into dust when they hit something really solid.

As for "gun violence," last time I checked, it was initiated by bad men with guns. The way to stop that is for good men to have guns, too.

...Y'might want to ask the various victims of genocide throughout history what they thought of the idea that only governments ought to be trusted with firearms. Oh, wait! You can't. They're dead. Odd thing, that.

Posted by: Roberta J. Barmore on October 5, 2006 2:10 AM

Sean, you are the one who needs to study ballistics and cabin pressure. Unfortunately for you, you spineless jellyfish, a bullet through the skin of an airplane will do nothing to its ability to fly. Also, the cabin will not implode or explode because of a bullet hole, you obviously have been watching too many movies during physics class.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 3:16 AM

Where do you get that crazy idea? Did you just make it up because you think it makes your so-called point? Britain has more violent crime than we do per capita now that the slaves have been disarmed. When was the last time Switzerland passed us up on per capita crime? When was the last time Israel had a school shooting? Oh yea, it was before they decided to arm all of the teachers. You really are a good little boot licking slave, I'm sure the PM is very proud of you. I hope you Aussies are glad you gave up your manhood, seems you weren't using it anyway.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 3:23 AM

Mathew, another uneducated fool heard from, bleating his ignorance for all to see. Isn't it a little embarrassing to prove to the whole world that you don't know what you are talking about? Ghandi DID indeed own guns and he also said that if someone were to shoot at him, he would deem it only right to shoot back. Another Aussie idiot, where do they find you people? You just spew lies thinking no one out here is any better informed than you are? What a moron!

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 3:27 AM

Uhhh, no, the inventor of the internet is an American scientist who developed packet switching software while a student at MIT (That's in Boston, MA, USA for you Aussies who are geographically challenged) The internet started out in the 1960s as an America military network and the people using it to develop WMDs wanted a way to communicate more easily. Your Brit, Timmy Berners - Lee, was a johnny come lately who didn't have anything to do with it until 1989. Is everybody in Australia a total idiot?

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 3:37 AM

Sean, out of all the ignorant, arrogant and rude posters on this board, you stand head and shoulders above the rest, or should I say below? You must be in your teens to be publishing such uniformed nonsense. Plese stay in Australia, we don't want you to contaminate the rest of the world with your incredible stupidity.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 3:44 AM

Sean, there you go again, quoting a study by a completely discredited and disgraced Author Kellerman. You know, posting this stuff where only ignorant fools like yourself read it is one thing. To post it on a board that is available around the world shows just how deep your stupidity goes. Before you emotionally write about things you clearly know nothing about, you really should do some studying.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 3:49 AM

Nothing like using data 10 years old to help prove a non point. I think the point is you really don't have a point. The areas with the highest gun crime here in the US are the areas with the toughest anti - gun laws, some even have outright bans. The more I read of this post, the more I realize that Australians are pretty stupid. But then you all are perfectly fine living in a socialist hell hole, so understanding the concepts of freedom and liberty are completely alien to you.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 3:57 AM

Another ignorant fool heard from. Do you teach logic down under? From reading these posts it would seem to me that you could really use a good professor of logic at your local college. First of all, heroin and all drugs should be legal, if you believe in the premise that we own ourselves. Secondly, murder and rape are crimes against another human, a true crime with a victim, unlike laws against certain objects or substances which are victim-LESS crimes and only serve to increase the power of the State at your expense. That last part about allowing every country to have WMDs is just plain stupid. Did anyone "allow" the US or the USSR to have WMDs? You cannot go around inspecting every country in the world and invading them if you don't like their policies or what their scientists are doing in a lab. What a complete moron. No wonder the whole world is sliding into a dictatorship, with fools like you running to the voting booths, it isn't even a struggle.

DOM: This is brilliantly satirical, keep it up.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 4:08 AM

Sean, what you are doing here is called projection. You know yourself to be a nutjob and are deathly afraid you will do something so mind numbingly stupid, so you want to disarm everybody. In your mind, everyone is a potential killer, just like you. The more I read your posts, the more I understand what a wacko you are. You really should seek professional help.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 4:13 AM

My God, they just crawl out of the woodwork don't they? As a matter of fact, I can and do recall mass murders by knife and baseball bats (depending on what you call "mass murder", I would say two or more people). And, what about all of the mass murder by automobile? Did you ignorant Aussies not hear about the student who drove his car through a crowded downtown street earlier this year? What a complete imbecile.

Posted by: Bill on October 5, 2006 4:20 AM

you really need to learn to express yourself in a succinct manner

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 7:53 AM

your first post was littered with your own opinions, go back and have another read.

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 7:59 AM

Sean why should I not have access to a butter knife? Where I live I know of no one who does not have access to a gun. I presume most are locked and stored properly; mine are.
And most of those firearms that are around here are not registered. A lot of owners of firearms are not registered as firearms owners.
Now there was awhile back here in Canada, once upon a time when a lobby group said they would decide the issues in Parliament. They passed laws and thought we, the lawful owners of firearms would follow those laws. Those laws they made are in violation of our rights. We protested legally and then disregarded those laws. Then it became apparent that there was not enough Metro Fools to over rule the lawabiding gun owners. And then after more than two billion dollars was spent the whole gun registry program broke down.
We were to register ourselves and then we were to register our firearms. Why would or should we do that. We asked.
Then the Coalition for Gun Control started lying, and they just never stopped lying and lying. Over ten years later they are still lying. But now they are lying and blameing the police.
We sit in a unique place here atop the Yanks. They are so gun happy we get a pass. We have about the same murder rate when the inner city drug settleing of scores is factored in to the math. They, (the Yanks) have more Metro Fools than we Canadians; add their unrealistic war on drugs, and the difference is obvious.
I remember did not some law abiding gun owners in Australia register their firearms so that all would be safe? Let me guess what happened next: The registered guns were confiscated by the federal government, n'est pas?
Gee.
The Coalition for Gun Control here in Canada told us they were not going to try to make us register so they could try to take our guns. They were going to make us register so that they could weed out the bad, and then by licensing new purchasers of legally bought guns they would keep firearms away from people that shouldn't be allowed to own them.
How did that turn out - you might wonder - Sean!

Hands off my pornography!
I respect the rights of people to keep firearms (within the law), so long as they respect my right to use pornography. The vast majority of the population that keep porn and firearms do so responsibly. The isolated case of one man abusing such liberties, porn or firearms, does not make a case for depriving the rest of the population of that liberty.

People die from car accidents but we recognise that they provide a greater good, the same applies for access (with sutiable controls), to firearms and pornography.

Posted by: Relmord on October 5, 2006 12:55 PM

Your constant personal attacks and name calling is unwarranted and uncalled for. If you want people to take your arguments seriously, then present them seriously without resorting to character assassination.

The same goes for the rest of you.

Otherwise, I, for one, am not interested in hearing your point of views. Kapitsche?

Posted by: Mary on October 5, 2006 1:01 PM

I hope you're not biased, Cartman, and address these points to ALL persons on this fora - including Bill.

Posted by: Mary on October 5, 2006 1:03 PM

Is everybody in America as rude and arrogant as you?

Posted by: Mary on October 5, 2006 1:06 PM

Woah! Hold on... WHO'S calling who ignorant, arrogant and rude?!

If you can dish it out but can't handle it, then go elsewhere.

Don't be a hypocrite, Bill.

Posted by: Mary on October 5, 2006 1:10 PM

You are sounding a bit insecure there; I think you are sounding a bit clueless there as owning and carrying a gun does not mean that you or your family are protected.

Most voilent murders happen when the assailant is 0 to 6 feet away. Lets put this in practical terms, you are walking down the street with the family you want to protect and you do so by carrying hard core, light but effective 9mm Glock. A robber jumps in front of you with a knife and asks for your wallet and watch. You decide to play Rambo and pull out your Glock. In the time you play quick draw Mcgraw (take the gun out from your hidden holster, cock the gun and turn off the safety as only a moron would walk around with a gun in their pants with bullet in the chamber and the saftey off) , the bad guy has reacted, closed the gap and stabbed you ten times. Go to any firearm security course and they will tell you that situation can easily be reality. And I am pretty sure if you standing next to one of those suicide bomber and his backpack went off, the gun would probably protect a small area of flesh around your holster from schrapnel.

What I am saying that is owning a gun does not make you protected, and that not owning a gun does not make you weak. It is all about attitude and using your bloody head. After reading some of Sian's blogs I am sure a predator won't go after her- lets face it (no offense Sian) she is a load mouth fiesty bitch and that bitchiness will shine through her physical presence- she would look a pain in the a##e to rob. If I were a bad guy, I'd prey on the geeky looking sullen looking guy in the corner with his head down fiddling with his 60Gb ipod.

As for gun laws, Tasmania the state where the Port Arthur shooting occured had the most relaxed gun laws in Australia. You could buy automatic weapons for hunting (not much sport in that- a good old double barrel or even a bow and arrow is a much better test of ones hunting prowess) and so a nut case could walk around and gun down 35 people. Since then the laws have changed so all automatic weapons have been taken off the public (apart from licensed exceptions) and the most any firearm can fire is 3 rounds. Since then there have been no more OK Corral type shooting mass murders in Australia such as Port Arthur since that day.

Compare this with the good old U.S of A- where mass shooting at schools happen weekly and rescue crews at Hurricane effect areas are shot at.

If you are that concerned about bad guys and want to protect yourself, take up a have decent martial arts. Something that uses weapons in reality type situations; I have been doing it for years and what I have learn't from all that time is- if a bad guy wants your wallet, give him your wallet. $50 and an overdrawn credit card is not worth your life.

Posted by: Mark on October 5, 2006 1:54 PM

oh learned bill, you need to compile a book of all of your wise posting so that we gun hating imbeciles can be cleansed of our freedom hating thoughts and we can be returned to the true path of doing whatever the hell we want.

Our argument is simple and you can't refute it (although you will keep trying, much to our amusement). Gun related deaths in the good of US of A are shitloads higher per head of population that they are in Australia or any other nation with reasonable gun control (specifically those nasty little handguns).

You see Bill, in my country, I can walk down any street in any neighbourhood of any city and not be fearful of some penis shooting me. You know why, mate? Its because we don't all have bloody guns.

Thankfully the majority of our population think that having easy access to firearms is a pretty bad idea.

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 2:12 PM

on this blog, attacking the opposition is much more entertaining. Their arguments are so insanely feeble that they hardly warrant attention.

Topics like this are great as you end up with the loopy fringe, who have bomb shelters in the backyard and anti tank missles in the cupboard next to the corn flakes,coming out of the woodwork to defend their god given right to shoot at stuff. It's kind of like poking a stick at a red belly black snake.

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 2:19 PM

Just a couple of observations, Jason.

1: For someone who probably craps on a lot about "freedom", you seem to be living in some sort of pananoiac hell, with terrorists stalking America's streets, homicidal maniacs slithering into suburban neighbourhoods and deranged psychos kicking down doors. This would seem to indicate that you have swallowed the rhetoric of your political masters & supporting media, who have a vested interest in maintaining a climate of alarm. Good doggie. Here's your biscuit. But please excuse the rest of us if we prefer to weigh the threats ourselves and decline to live in fear.

2: The strong do indeed prey on the weak. But the strong and the weak alike are ruled by the clever. You are a shining example of this basic evolutionary principle, an aggressive lunkhead mouthing gung-ho platitudes that have been fed to you by smarter operators who depend on the support of useful idiots. And you think you're a rugged individual. Sorry, you're a cartoon character.

Posted by: sian on October 5, 2006 2:19 PM

Certainly you can kill one or more people with a knife, baseball bat or automobile. Conceivably I could specifically identify and target a group of people unable to defend themselves against dental floss.

The point is that thse implements are not designed specifically for the purpose and can't be used effectively from the Texas University tower.

Posted by: SC on October 5, 2006 2:21 PM

Bill, a spineless jellyfish like me doesn't need a gun to defend myself.

You're losing the plot now

Posted by: sean on October 5, 2006 2:25 PM

You pathetic little men really do need your guns to compensate for "other" deficiencies don't you.

Posted by: Mathew on October 5, 2006 2:28 PM

Glad you brought up Israel, Bill. That's a shining example of how to use force to solve a problem now, isn't it?

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 2:28 PM

There is a difference between diarming a nation and disarming the general public.

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), 'Satyagraha Leaflet No. 13,' May 3, 1919

Posted by: Mathew on October 5, 2006 2:34 PM

cut it out bill, you'll get me in trouble at work. I laughed out loud at that one.

I think someone of your rare talents should get into politics posthaste.

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 2:36 PM

Thank you Bill, you are obviously one of these mental midgets that believes that debate consists of personal attacks and general insults. Allow me to respond in kind. Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth?

I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.
Mahatma Gandhi

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi

That was a real man, not some redneck over compensating for "something".

Posted by: Mathew on October 5, 2006 2:52 PM

Jason,
Being that you're a responsible gun owner, your gun is under lock and key when that machette wielding maniac bursts through your door. How, pray tell, do you get your gun out, load it and blow this criminal scum away before he cuts you up into bolognaise?

and how exactly will the criminals, terrorists etc identify which households are gunned up and which aren't?

there could be one or two holes in your defensive plans that you may wish to investigate before one of those stinking terrorists from Iraq get some jihad on your arse.

but thanks for responding, this blog is most entertaining today.

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 2:56 PM

I love you guys.
Guns - no problem.
Pictures of naked adults - evil.

This sick bloke would have had a pretty tough time killing 5 kids and himself and wounding several others before the cops busted the door down if he didn't have a gun. Full stop, end of story.

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 3:09 PM

Does anyone else think Bill and Winstone Robinson are either the same person or possessed by the same mischevious imp?

Posted by: Sean on October 5, 2006 3:20 PM

It is tempting to believe that there is only one person that stupid and vile but I fear it is not so.

It seems stupidity is all well and fine in this brave new world but vileness will get you nowhere

To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 5, 2006 4:59 PM

Actually Tim Berners-Lee had nothing to do with interconnected computing at all. He invented the interweb.

The internet came partially out of military necessity and university input. I think you're referring to Bill Yeager. But before Bill there was already milnet et al.

Posted by: Cartman on October 5, 2006 6:48 PM

I didn't say I didn't express my own opinion. I said I didn't express an opinion on the shootings...

Posted by: Cartman on October 5, 2006 6:50 PM

"Does anyone else think Bill and Winstone Robinson are either the same person or possessed by the same mischievios imp?" Posted by Sean the clueless one.

Well Sean I never thought about that, and I do read blogs. You are not doing so well on this one Mate. You have made many many errors and then when caught out still keep replying and again as before with nonsense. Please go back to the top and reread the whole article. Granted DOM is out of his area of expertise on this one, but hey, the point of blogging is to make people exchange ideas. Your thinking is insular to the nenth degree.
One more deranged person will again slaughter some innocent people. It happens all the time. Your Island is overdue for an incident that will lead to more and more gun control. Gun control to folks as you usually means the taking of all legally owned firearms from the people that possess them.
You see I understand that the arctic ice is melting. I understand the middle east is a powder keg and could be soon a torched space. As a gun owner I cannot stop the slide of this planet to a complete self fulfilling prophetic based armegeddon.
But I am still waiting for you to explain why I should not have access to a butter knife.
I don't like or eat butter unless it is homemade. But a good old butter knife has many uses.
What do you think I would do with a butter knife that is so horrendous I should not be able to have access to one?
Tighten a fawcetty screwie on the antenna of my child's surfie boardy. Loosen and pry off a stringie from my wife's didgerdooie? Beat the living begeezusy out of coloured immigrants about the heady? Dive deap and press under my thumbs a big hulking Ray spikey about to killie all naturey lovers? Use two, one off another as mirrors, to check my back for Killer Bees?

Now Sean and their ilk want to not only deny me access to a butterie knifey - they are joining hands to make it so.

I'm hungry and I have some jam. Some multi-grain bread with a glass of water.
Yurgh pitjkzx ewqt-hbvf: "oue54 bvnfh nb iuik?"

Excuse me on those last comments. If I had a butterie knifey I would not have had to spread by hand.

Ha Ha. Tricked you Sean. I really have a lot of butter knives. All of them not registered. One is really long, stiff, and gleaming. One is sort of half turned at the blade and looks like something most would not use. My Mother's Mother gave it to her and then my Mother gave it to me.

Posted by: SK***ter BOI**erte on October 5, 2006 7:49 PM

And who is the good guy in the cabin carrying the gun? What level of training does he/she have? How often does he/she practice? Because it would be rather tragic to miss the terrorist and hit someone else, don't you think?

Posted by: cynic on October 5, 2006 8:49 PM

Only the geographically challenged ones who think that Australia is located next to Germany.

Posted by: cynic on October 5, 2006 9:01 PM

I do, for sure. Wait, what was the question again? Either? Oh sorry, I was agreeing with both alternatives, I didn't realise you were asking me to choose!

Posted by: Bron on October 5, 2006 9:25 PM

Jason, first of all, no one in their right mind will go after Sian. They must have a death wish. (No offence Sian - your posts are the highlight of my day.)

Secondly, in any occupation where guns are necessary, the handlers practice regularly. Otherwise they can't be guaranteed to perform under pressure when needed. That is hardly the case with the average Joe keeping a gun for security and never or seldom using it.

I always thought if I was threatened I'd do a reasonable job of protecting myself. A couple of years ago I was a victim of road rage, and I froze in terror for several seconds before I could think of how to respond to the threat. That was more than enough time for my attacker to kill me if he wanted. Carrying a gun would not have protected me at all, and if I fired it, I could have hit an innocent person.

Posted by: cynic on October 5, 2006 9:32 PM

No idea, but I agree with Dom - he's brilliantly satirical. Bill also seems to have a slight problem with anger management. Just the sort of person who needs to carry a gun, not.

This way you might (I said might) realize what an utter ignoramus you are.

Posted by: Andy on October 5, 2006 11:23 PM

Oh, but you forgot to tell us how Australia has become a crime free utopia since they banned guns:

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

Ouch!!!!!!!

Posted by: Dave W. on October 6, 2006 3:15 AM

Thank you mathew for proving my point about your maturity and intelligence level. Not one of your quotes is relevant to the discussion. I see you were unable to come up with any anti - gun quotes from your self proclaimed hero. Well, I just happen to have one:

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 6:32 AM

I love the way you single me out for your harangue but the rest of these mental midgets are indulging in personal attacks far beyond what I have done. Besides I do not suffer fools well. Hope you chains aren't too uncomfortable. . .

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 6:35 AM

Sean, it seems you have to be led around by the hand to follow a conversation. We are talking crime and school shootings, not war. Israel had a school shooting and instead of following the American lead of making schools gun free and therefore criminal safe zones, they armed the teachers. Result, no more school shootings. Please do try and follow along.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 6:49 AM

Where's Mary when you need her? That comment is really beyond stupid. Was I compensating for other deficiencies when I used a gun to fend off a would be murderer? Would you rather I and millions of others like me be dead so you can feel self - righeous? Have you ever had to look death squarely in the eye little boy? In the form of an armed and dangerous criminal? You simply are an immature fool who has no concept of the real world outside of your parent's basement.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 6:57 AM

No Mary, they all moved to Australia where they begat the likes of you, you pretentious little girl.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 6:59 AM

Mark, Glocks do not have a safety lever and they use an internal "striker" rather than an exposed hammer and firing pin: there's no cocking them. They are carried with a round in the chamber. They do have a dopey little gadget in the trigger that locks the trigger in place unless it is depressed by the shooter's fingertip; it is supposed to prevent accidental trigger pulls and, barring a really bad holster design, seems to work. The Glock has a fairly hard trigger pull -- the exact opposite of a "hair trigger" -- and many people who carry them install a stronger spring to make it even more so. So, assuming you are carrying a Glock, when a bad guy pulls a knife on you, what you do is get your Glock out and it's ready....

...And nine times out of ten, the bad guy runs away; he doesn't want to get shot. If he runs away, not only is it poor form and illegal to shoot him in the back (yes, even in Florida), it's unnecessary: the threat is departing. This is how most defensive gun use by civilians plays out: no shots are fired.

The tenth time, he may be shot at close range (or not - would you shot a bad guy if clump of innocent bystanders was standing behind him?) and may or may not go on to injure you. Stats in the US (your mileage may vary!) show that victims resisting their attacker are less likely to end up seriously injured or dead. Yes, less likely.

In my opinion, there are better choices for a civilian carry sidearm than a Glock; they are preferred by many military and police organizations because they are lightweight and dependable, but they're a bit easier to do stupid things with than more conventional semiautomatics.

But no one has said that you -- or any Australian -- ought to be forced to carry a sidearm. In fact, I'm happier to know that you, personally, are not, as it appears so doing would make you utterly miserable. As for guns in .au in general, I don't care; that's a local matter. Make your own laws.

As for guns in the U.S.: in my youth, we had far less regulation of them than we do now. Rifles and pistols were sold in hardware stores with no background check of any sort -- and we had no school shootings. Zero. As more and more laws and restrictions have been added, crimes have become ever more lurid. Is there a connection? Dunno. But it does give one to wonder.

Posted by: Roberta J. Barmore on October 6, 2006 7:03 AM

Mary, who asked you anyway? I don't see you refuting anything any of us have posted with anything resembling logic or facts.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 7:04 AM

Well bully for you Sean! Of course the opposite is true, if I can believe the stories in the newspapers of your crime problem down there, which seems to be growing and growing. You see, we have people here who think like you do, the first thing they want to do after a tragedy, is blame the people who didn't do it, or, blame an inanimate object. There are over 80 million legal gun owners in this country who own over 200 million firearms. Today, not one them committed a crime. Are you really so naive as to believe that if we banned guns in this country, criminals would stop being criminals? All you are doing is taking away my means of defending myself and my family from these predators. So, what you are really saying it that it is better for innocent people to be murdered and hope the police catch them than to have those same innocent people be allowed to defend themselves. I have used a gun to prevent criminal attack twice in my life. I sincerely hope you do not have to have that experience, especially since you will be completely defenseless and at the mercy of your attacker.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 7:16 AM

Sorry Sean, I certainly don't want you to get in any trouble at the office. I would go into politics, but I just can't stomach the vast majority of my would be peers. Perhaps I should try my hand at writing for Nation Lampoon, or the Onion.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 7:27 AM

I very much doubt you could do much of anything to anyone with dental floss this side of a coma ward. Even then, you would be hard pressed to strangle someone with floss, unless you wound an entire roll around the throat. It is far harder than most people realize to strangle someone, especially if they are fighting for their lives.

I think you would also be surprised at the damage an auto dropped from such a height would do to an unsuspecting group of tourists.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 7:41 AM

Mark, you are completely wrong here. Most shootings(77%)take place at a distance of 22 feet. I really don't see how martial arts are going to help you when your attacker is that far away. Unless you break the law and carry throwing stars, which are illegal here in most places, especially the places you are likely to be attacked, big cities. Secondly, you really don't know a thing about guns do you? A Glock doesn't need to be cocked, it is a double action only handgun with no safety, other than that irritating (to me)double trigger. I can tell that you have never been faced with a life or death criminal attack. Fact of the matter is you are 10 times more likely to be injured or killed if you do not fight back and give the criminal everything he demands.

School shootings do not happen here weekly.
And what do you make of the fact that when I was a boy, everybody had guns and nobody locked them up? School shootings were unheard of in the 1960s and 70s. There is a much deeper problem here than guns.

Rescue crews were not shoot at during Katrina, regardless of what you read in the paper. But, we did have so-called police and National Guard go house to house, beat people up and take their lawfully owned guns from them.

And, you failed to address what is a person to do if the criminal doesn't want your wallet, he wants your life? What is a woman to do if she is attacked by a rapist? He certainly doesn't want her wallet. Are you trying to tell me that a 100 pound woman, regardless of her training and skill level, is any match for a coked up 250 pound man intent on doing her harm? I don't think so. My wife, before she became disabled, was into Karate. She couldn't defeat me and we were just horsing around. Plus, she was attacked in a hospital parking garage and she was severely beaten, despite her training. She also obeyed the Chicago law of no guns allowed, so she was utterly defenseless. In fact, her martial arts training might have given her a false sense of security.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 8:19 AM

Sian, just a couple of observations.

1)You are out of your element here. If we listened to our political masters, we would have turned all of our guns in by now. 95+% of politicians and media are anti-gun and several have admitted their goal is the total outlaw of firearms by the public. The climate of alarm they want to foster is that of letting them be in charge of everything. We are not living in a paranoid hell, we are realists who know bad things can happen to good people. I, and my wife, know this only too well as both of us have been attacked by criminals, with my wife suffering life long injuries. She and I both wish she had ignored the strict gun laws in Chicago and carried one anyway. There are so many, too many, cases of innocent people in decent neighborhoods far from the inner city who have been attacked and even murdered in their own homes.

2) No man has the right to rule over another. Until all of you get that through your heads, indeed the corrupt and clever will rule over you. And you think you are an enlightened elitist. Sorry, you live in a fantasy world.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 8:37 AM

Not the same person, but quite possibly possessed by the same mischievous imp!

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 8:41 AM

I can't speak for Jason, but I keep a loaded handgun under my pillow, a rifle in easy reach and a German Shepherd on the floor beside the bed.

They aren't. We keep trying to convince the antis to post signs in their yards stating that they keep a gun free household, but they simply refuse to do so. I guess they like the benefit of the criminals not knowing either.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 8:47 AM

Unfortunately Gwen, you don't know what you are talking about. Our God given right to bear arms is in NO way linked to our staggering murder rate. It seems you like to make things up because, well, they make you feel better about yourself. In fact, the area in the US with the highest crime rates are the very places you would probably visit because guns are illegal there. New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. all have banned handguns completely and they have the highest crime rates. Our crime rates are the lowest where we have the fewest restrictions on gun ownership. So reality proves who is the stupid one.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2006 9:03 AM

And your sources are ...?

Posted by: actonb on October 6, 2006 12:56 PM

I already answered that quote you fool. I also see that you provided none that support the bearing of arms by the general public yourself.

Posted by: Mathew on October 6, 2006 12:58 PM

So is the solution for every teacher to keep a loaded gun in the classroom, so they can stop these loonies? I think not. Considering some of the teachers I had, and their inability to control some of the students, the thought of it makes my blood run cold.

Posted by: cynic on October 6, 2006 1:11 PM

Is the German Shepherd kept in easy reach too. You know, cold, lonesome night and all that.

Posted by: Relmord on October 6, 2006 1:31 PM

Aaawww did I hit a nerve, Grandpa? (you presume to be older that I somewhat doubt it)
No I've never faced a danger that a gun could solve and proud of it. No armed and dangerous criminals lurking under my bed. I may live in a nation built by convicts but you seem to be the one living in fear. In this country, I've face bush fires, floods and wild storms, things you can't shoot or intimidate or even reason with and I'm still here, to suffer the ravings of moronic Americans insisting that they aren't the architects of their own problems. But by all means continue to believe that guns make you safe in the land of the Brave and just ignore the fact that America has among the highest rates of gun violence per capita in the first world. Deluded twit.

Oh and one last thing few homes in Australia have basements.

Posted by: Mathew on October 6, 2006 1:39 PM

But then there's nothing like using precisely no data to contradict my 8 year old data.

Freedom? Liberty? I guess they're relative concepts. I think you're enslaved to your own particular ideology to the point that you won't tolerate anyone's opposing view, no matter how reasonably they are expressed.

Posted by: actonb on October 6, 2006 1:41 PM

I don't see that as a disadvatage since you yourself offer neither. Unless you intend to bludge off Cartman and others while hurling insults from the sidelines like some demented cheerleader.

Posted by: Mathew on October 6, 2006 1:46 PM

Bill, we're actually talking guns and gun control.

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 1:58 PM

Those statistics date back to 1998. They are not the past 12 months as you say in your message. Also, the statistics quoted do not cover the full year since the laws were introduced - they were in actual fact introduced during the period.

Looking at the ABS website (link below), - we see that armed robberies have been falling since 2001.
2001.http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/A05E3DBEC1109735CA257178001B69FC/$File/45100_2005.pdf

Posted by: Relmord on October 6, 2006 2:01 PM

False stats

Posted by: righteous on October 6, 2006 2:02 PM

Bill, I don't have time to go about debunking all of the many myths you have spread on this site. I will concentrate instead on your claim that you have a 'god given right'. Only three things wrong with that one. The words 'god', 'given' and 'right'. All three are figments of your imagination and that of those who think like you. And from that basic delusion, all the rest flows.

Posted by: righteous on October 6, 2006 2:06 PM

satirical?

I'm trying to detirmine whether he's a comic genious or a seriously disturbed ultra right wing anarchist squatting in a bunker somewhere, stocked with enough firepower to arm a small Central American guerilla force, hunched over a keyboard working on his UN conspiracy theories and only coming here to take a break once in a while.

So drugs are a victimless crime now. Tell that to the families of the drug user, the victims of drug-related crime; theft, assualt and rape and murder. I really do hope you were trying to be funny but from your other posts I think you are a fool of the worst kind. if you want to see dictatorial sliding look no further than your own backyard and the war criminal Bush.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 6, 2006 2:09 PM

Yes, bully for me. Australia's great!

Each of your posts reinforces how ridiculously paranoid you are.

Are you really that naive to believe that not one of those 80 million legal gun owners committed a crime? of course that's beside the point. How many of them accidentally set off their weapon, killing a loved one? How many kids were rummaging through their dad's stuff and found a loaded gun that looked fun to play with? How many guys caught their wife doing the dirty with the pool cleaner and had a brain snap?

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 2:11 PM

you get pretty worked up, Bill. Don't you? I hope you kill a few things every now an then to release the pressure and make the bad dreams go away.

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 2:14 PM

I am assuming that they don't have gun checkpoints on the borders of your states. How could you possibly have effective gun controls if they weren't across the whole country?

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 2:21 PM

Logic and facts, Bill? Oh, ha ha ha ha! Put down the bible and gun for a moment and pass the tissues, please. It's propaganda, the business that you are in, mate. Are you the NRA's man on the watch for evidence of anti-gun blogs anywhere in the world, or just on a personal crusade?

Posted by: righteous on October 6, 2006 2:23 PM

I sleep peacefully at night without the fear of being attacked, and without all of the accessories you deem necessary. In my city, more often than not, the victims of shootings are involved in crime themselves and are already mixing with the scum of society. As a woman, I use some common sense and take reasonable safety precautions, like not walking in poorly lit locations at night, or not using an ATM in a quiet location. Shootings in broad daylight in my city are usually targetted at a specific person against whom the killer has a vendetta. In that case, the killer is determined to get his victim one way or another. I'm quite comfortable living without a gun and I don't constantly fear for my safety. I pity you for feeling that it is necessary to live the way you do.

Posted by: cynic on October 6, 2006 2:30 PM

True we don't have a House of Lords. We do however have a House of Review that more closely resembles the Lords than anything in the American system.

Posted by: actonb on October 6, 2006 2:31 PM

they might piss you off a little bit too much and end up mounted above your fireplace.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if a condensed verion of this discussion appears on the onion. Pure gold it is.

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 2:35 PM

I'd hate to be throwing a surprise party for you, Bill!

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 2:43 PM

I said "conceivably" not "easily".

It could make quite an effective tripwire on a decent set of stairs.......

....... I've got to go clean out my bathroom cabinet.

Posted by: SC on October 6, 2006 2:45 PM

If 95%+ of your pollies are for gun control, why hasn't it happened?

These are people that have been elected by citizens of your country. Surely if they are that far out of touch with public opinion, they would be voted out and replaced by a more representative group?

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 2:47 PM

I worry about you skeets. OK you can have a butter knife as long as there's a cork on the end.

and you say I reply with nonsense

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 2:58 PM

there's no helping some people.

While you're in a stats kind of mood, would you like to quote (and provide sources) how many gun related deaths occurred in Australia per head of population last year versus gun related deaths in the US per head of population.

If you can do that for us then we might pay some attention to you, but right now you sound like some kind of sensationalist tabloid journalist from today tonight or A Current Affair ( the kind of stuff that passes for news for cretins such as yourself)

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 3:05 PM

If you're too lazy to tell us for yourself, we're just not interested.

Posted by: Sean on October 6, 2006 3:09 PM

1. Dom's article was meant to be satirical, thats what the chaser guys do.

3. Thank God we live in australia. We had one very violent incident and made the right reactionary call. Sure, there are still guns prowling around in the hands of crims, but at least other vulnerable or mentally ill people don't have such easy access to a quick fix solution.

Posted by: mena on October 6, 2006 3:16 PM

Don't let names confuse you Cartman. Our Senate has little more than the name in common with the USA Senate. Our system of government is almost entirely based on the Westminster system, we just don't have any lords to fill the seats.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 6, 2006 3:18 PM

Well Mr. Bill please enlighten us poor deprived savages. Tell us all about these American inventions called F R E E D O M and L I B E R T Y. Only can you do it without the cluster bombs and civilian slaughter, we socialist hell hole dwellers find that counter productive. Oh and if you have time please teach us the magical logic you used to assert that Drugs are a victimless crime, no-one here can fathom that one.

Wasn't freedom some kind of chip? Can I get gravy on them? Salt and vinegar? Chicken salt? Bugger now I'm hungry for freedom chips.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 6, 2006 3:33 PM

Another stroke of satirical brilliance.

Posted by: cynic on October 6, 2006 3:39 PM

It is now just the end of the first year since registered guns were surrendered to the government in Australia? That's it. I thought it had been longer since that happened. Now it is obvious why some in Australia still believe that would work. Just goes to show that as the Aussies work to rid themselves of our Queen, they are just a short time behind the Brits in the realization they will soon see once your so called "crims" get more of a grip.

Sean, why should not I have access to a butter knife?
This whole blog depends on you answering that question. Why do you not answer that question of mine. You stated I should not have access to a butter knife. Why? Please answer my question.
And also if a person in Australia were to register a gun in a name hidden like you are hiding yours here on this blog where would the police go to take that registered gun if the anonymous person did not voluntarily turn in their firearm? Sean why don't you post your full name here on this blog. Then place your home address along side that. I am coming to see if you have a butter knife.

Sean, why should not I have access to a butter knife?

Sean I ask one more time. Why should not I have access to a butter knife?

Posted by: SK***ter BOI**erte on October 6, 2006 7:42 PM

You really need to stop insulting people as a knee jerk reaction. How nice would it be to live in a world where people can have opposing views and then debate them, listen to the other side and see if it makes sense, then correct any mistakes you see.

People would actually get smarter and the world would be a better place.

Posted by: Cartman on October 6, 2006 8:22 PM

Definitely not every teacher, and definitely not "in the classroom". The operative phrases are "if suitably trained" and "concealed on the person".

Regardless, why deny self-defense to the good guys? How does any attempt at pre-emptive restriction ever affect anybody but the law abiding?

For crying out loud, the act this nut-job actually COMMITTED was against any number of laws (murder, kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, etc).

Attempting to prevent the commission of a crime by removing the tools of the crime is Orwellian Newspeak writ large. Does the concept of "If there isn't a name for revolution, they can't think revolution" strike any chords?

The Amish are a pacifist people, and probably would decline the means of self-defense anyway. but why deny that means to others?

Posted by: anonymous on October 6, 2006 9:22 PM

I didn't know radar was infested with so many right wing americans. it's so scary i might have to never come back here

Travelling canadians the world wide sew canadian flags onto their backpacks so people know not to hurt them because they aren't stupid yanks. The world hates America. God bless america's enemies.

Posted by: jaclyn on October 6, 2006 9:58 PM

Yes, it would be tragic, but the next bullet might hit. Call me heartless, but I'd rather an innocent passenger got shot than the whole plane parked in sydney tower.

Posted by: Daniel on October 6, 2006 10:30 PM

Yes, If the sicko had just had a kitchen knife, he'd only have been able to kill 3 of the girls and mutilate 5 more before being shot by the cops.

More people were killed by machete in Rwanda than died as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Its not the tool, it's the user.

Posted by: Daniel on October 6, 2006 10:46 PM

Nope, real stats. Things have been pretty good here for the past while. So overall crime is down.

The dropoff in gun murders was matched by a corresponding increase in knife murders and it looks the national preference (40%) is, and has been for quite some time, to beat someone to death bare-handed. 30% of murderers used a knife 10% chose a gun and the remainder were apparently quite inventive.

Posted by: Daniel on October 6, 2006 11:07 PM

You people crack me up. Quoting micheal moore? His supposed movies are fiction not fact. The fact is that the "sheeple" in australia will believe anything the anti-gun goverment will tell you.

Posted by: Dave on October 7, 2006 12:35 AM

Ohh, look, mommy let Mathew out to play again. How do you like being a slave to your government Mathew? Do you think mommy will keep letting out to play on your keyboard? Maybe she should make you study history instead of posting nonsense on this board, your time would be better spent.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 2:47 AM

No, you didn't hit a nerve. As I know you to be immature fool and un-representative of the majority of Australians, it is impossible for you to get me upset. You are clearly delusional if you think I live in fear. It seems it is I who hit the nerve with you. If you are so brave and manly, why don't you try walking around New York or Chicago late at night? When some crack head tries to rob you, you can always reason with him, with your skills I sure you escape unscathed . . . NOT. Maybe as you lay there bleeding out, you will realize, although too late, that I was right all along.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:02 AM

Then I fail to follow your so-called point. What does Israel's war machine have to do with private ownership of guns, gun control and school shootings? I clearly stated that Israel hasn't had school shootings since they armed the teachers. I never mentioned anything about they foreign policy or their military, so why did you bring that up?

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:08 AM

A lot less than you do Sean. And no where near Mary's hysteria.

DOM: You have a remarkable amount of time on your hands, Bill.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:11 AM

Are you posting from a mental institution? That is the only explanation for such drivel. I'm afraid it is you who has swallowed the propaganda that you must be a good little tax paying slave for the State. Hope your chains aren't too uncomfortable there chippy. BTW, NRA = Negotiating Rights Away. They are far to compromising to suit me.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:18 AM

And what exactly is your contribution to all of this? Other than proving to the entire world you are a shallow, uneducated, unthinking troglodyte?

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:21 AM

Yes, Sean, it is a fact, not one American gun owner committed a crime today. You really should stop buying into such nonsense. I guess I was really paranoid when I saved my own life with a gun, boy I shouldn't have done that, I should let him kill me and let my family hope the police caught up with him. Here though, we don't call pragmatic, ralistic people paranoid. You see Sean, the reality of it is, gun owners do not go around shooting people at random, even if they catch their wife with another man. This is going to come as surprise to you since you don't have a clue about what life is like here, but we have. . .LAWS! Yes, that's right, you can't just shoot somebody because they piss you off, can you imagine? You actually have to believe you or another person were at great risk of bodily harm or death. Unbelievable, isn't it?

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:34 AM

Maybe a little of both, keeps you guessing doesn't it?

I really don't care what happens to someone who decides to abuse drugs, that is their choice and a decision they have to live with, not me, not my responsibility. I am kept busy enough looking out for me and mine and I have no right to run someone else's life, let alone the time. And why is there drug related crime? Do you think maybe because some drugs are illegal? And what kind of signals are we sending when we tell people they can't use pot or coke, but be sure to ask your doctor about the all new and improved__________? Also, the public schools here are forcing parents to medicate their children with all kinds of psychotropic drugs starting in primary school. What this boils down to, quite simply, is either you believe we own ourselves or we don't. If you believe we do, then all drugs should be legal, like they were here until the early 1900s. If not, then you believe the State owns everything and has the right to rule over everything you do and everything you "own." So, you are either a person who believes in freedom, property rights and self-ownership, or you are some flavor of communist.

At last, something we can agree on, Bush is a war criminal and a wanna be dictator. Sadly, none of our so-called elected officials will listen to we the people and remove him, they just keep on giving him more and more power.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:50 AM

Really? I'm the one who won't tolerate anyone's opposing views? You stuck your foot in your mouth there my friend. I am not saying we have to force anyone and everyone to buy a gun, that is your decision, not mine. If you don't want to own one, fine by me. But, you insist that the State use their guns to come and steal mine, who doesn't tolerate opposing views again?

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 3:55 AM

I can't believe I have found the only person on the entire planet that doesn't believe in natural rights! This is truly a find, a once in a lifetime discovery! I must call the Field Museum of Natural History to report finding the missing link!

Fine, if you don't like God, how about natural right? Or birth right? Every living thing on this planet is born with an innate instinct to defend itself, humans included. You are delusional if think people won't try and save their own lives with any means necessary. Self defense is delusional huh? I can't wait to find out how you will react if someone tries to kill you or a loved one. I think all your high falutin talk will fly right out the window, but I might be wrong.

Good grief, NO!!! We haven't gone totally draconian yet! It really doesn't matter though, criminals avoid places and people likely to inflict grievous harm to them while they ply their trade, so they naturally gravitate to crime safe zones. If we did have a total gun ban, then the entire country would be a crime safe zone.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 4:16 AM

Why Sean? My dog is really very friendly one she knows you pose no threat and are a friend. Also, I take gun ownership very seriously, I don't play around with them, brandish them or shoot people I argue with. If I did, I would have been in prison for years now. Just don't break into my house at 3:00am with the intent to kill me and rape my wife, you'll be dealing with double purple poison at that point, in the form of very large teeth and hot lead.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 4:24 AM

Oh yes, by all means when something comes along that disrupts your naive world view, just claim it is false! What a strategy! Are you in the State of Australia or denial?

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 4:30 AM

Actually, yes she is. She likes to sneak on the bed and snuggle in between my wife and I at night, especially in the winter.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 4:36 AM

Cynic, I don't need your pity, I live in the real world where bad things can and do happen to good people. Unfortunately, I have a very sad and sobering story to relate. One of my friends has an adult daughter. This woman lived in Chicago on a very upscale, expensive neighborhood, locally called the "Gold Coast". So named for the high priced real estate you will find there. Only the moneyed can afford to live there and crime is very low compared to other parts of the city, almost unheard of. She and her live in boyfriend were sound asleep in their bed in the middle of a recent night, around 2:00am. She was awakened by noises emanating from the kitchen area and, being scared, woke her boyfriend. He went to investigate, and, being a law-abiding citizen, of course obeyed the draconian gun bans in Chicago and went unarmed. As soon as he came out of the bedroom doorway, the robbers shot him twice in the chest. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Now, her life is pretty much over. She was so traumatized that she has quit her job and moved back in with her parents, unable to face the daily routine of life. At this point, we do not know what the long term effects will be for her, we can only hope she will eventually get better. My point here is 1) even if you do everything right and live in the right neighborhood, there are no guarantees something like this won't happen. 2) If her and her boyfriend had been armed the outcome might well have found both of them alive and explaining how they came to rid the earth of some scum. By denying them the natural right to self defense, the city and its mayor have some culpability in this. Why is it most of you here feel that this is the proper outcome?

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 4:54 AM

Actually, Sian's smart mouth would get her in deeper trouble with a predator.

You are kidding right? Police practice a lot less than I or my friends do and we know more about the subject at hand than most of them do. Statistics bear this out. Police in the US are involved in more shootings of innocent people, per capita than lawful gun owners. If I remember correctly, of all police shootings 11% are deemed to be in error, where they shot an innocent person accidentally. For the law-abiding gun owner, that figure is less than 1%. it is a complete myth that the police are better trained than the private individual.

Well, there is that and there is nothing that can overcome this reaction other than training until you can't stand it anymore. Even then there is no guarantee you will overcome it, some people are just this way. Hopefully, you will never face a situation where this will make any difference.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 5:06 AM

ACO, let's us take a walk together in the seamiest areas of Chicago or New York. I will go armed and you will go defenseless. At day break we will see who thinks who is stupid, if you're still able that is. I, most likely, will be mourning your passing and wondering if you held your beliefs right up to the very end.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 5:12 AM

Cynic, it might surprise you to learn that I have owned guns since I was ten years old and never once have I shot anyone. The only times I have even pointed a gun at someone was when they were trying to physically assault and rob me. Though many arguments with family and friends, and a divorce, although a gun was always close at hand, I never once even thought about reaching for it.

Posted by: Bill on October 7, 2006 5:18 AM

Guns don't kill people. Stingrays kill people

Posted by: Freddy on October 7, 2006 10:59 AM

Okay Sean where are you now?
First you state I should not have access to a butter knife.
Now You, yes you, decide that I should be allowed to have a butter knife. And I should be allowed to have a butter knife as long as there is a cork on the end. So now I can have a butter knife with your blessing. Tell me more Sean. Why should I have a cork on the end?

Posted by: skeets. now with a new name given to moi by Sean on October 9, 2006 11:24 AM

Well, I have reasonably put my case that there is far more gun-related crime in the US (even if using 8 year old material)than in Australia. This is because there is far more gun ownership per head of population in the US than here. You still haven't produced any figures to say that here in Australia we are LESS safe from gun-related crime. You haven't shown any tolerance of anyone's opposing view. In fact, all you've done is trawl this forum, responding to everyone with a countrary view to your own, in an insulting and ignorant manner. You can choose to own a gun in Australia, you're just subject to rules which ensure both yours and the wider community's safety. There will always be crime. There will always be Bad People doing Bad Things. Having an abundance of readily-accessible tools for creating mass pain and injury is just asking for trouble...

Posted by: actonb on October 9, 2006 12:04 PM

Aaaww Bill, you'll hurt my feelings. No slaves here Bill, actually it's the influences of your country on mine that are bigger threat to freedom here at this time. History tells me that my country was not founded on the use of firearms but by act of Law. History tells me that the winner of a battle is not necessarily the side in the right. History also says that an abundance of guns leads invariably to a higher incidence of gun related crime with a few noted exceptions. Histroy also tells me that the guns used in the massacre at Port Arthur were legally owned. The owners were the first victims of the killer. Still feel safe? Or will your Mummy protect you?

Posted by: Mathew on October 9, 2006 12:23 PM

Sean might you explain why your Johnny 'Big Boot' Howard is still in power and headed for another popular vote election win term? Wow.
That says a lot for your system.
A politician could rule forever down under what with no terms limit and a populace that takes one mass slaughter to the extreme. An extreme that would see your country disarmed and now surrounded by islanders (and non-islanders) that have still many guns in civilians' hands.
If you would care to branch out and see another side of American politics you would understand the NRA (North American Man-Boy Love Association ~ just kidding ~ ), the National Rifle Association has written the book on "Capitol Lobby Techniques." The NRA has out hustled the various anti-gun lobbyists. All Yank politics Sean is lobby efforts with lobbyists exerting influence on elected officials. Whomever speaks the truth to an elected official will win that representative's vote on all matters legislative.
Elected officials in Ausrtralia do the wishes of their constituents? Yup, right, uh-huh tell me another one.
But it is easier for you to sit there and accentuate every last little time one or two or three or four children get killed while attending school in the USA.
Peanuts and their many processed derivitives kill more school children per year than the death by shooting score.
I have no idea if that is true but if a person used that stat to make a point there would be an uproar. Similarily where gun-banners create stats to their liking they are summarily and forthwith shot down. The NRA is nye on impossible to bring down when there is really no reason to disarm a whole nation because of a few horrendous and unacceptable displays of the taking of life by an isolated element that is not represntative of an average gun owner.
Yes Sean you and your gun-banner friends have an affinity with Metro Fools here in Canada. I can't think of any reasons to keep my guns other than the facts that they were given to me by family, and they don't take up much space. And I don't worry about anybody robbing my life where in as much I would feel the need to stop them with a round or two from my firearms. Granted my firearms are double locked in one area of this house and with the amunition likewise double locked in a totally different part on this property, I would as mentioned earlier not desire to harm anyone that intends to do harm to me by the use of force from one of my guns directed at them. But that is just me. I do though have neighbours that would be willing to defend themselves quite vigorously if the need arises. Metro Fools turned home-invasion-dregs here in Canada, cannot discern which rural house has whom for an occupant. A wrong pry here or a wrong smashed window there could very well see the culprits held at bayonet end until the authorities are summoned. And make no mistake about it we here in the canadian country side have a definite deterent to those fools: firearms. Firearms in the hands of people that would not hesitate to use thier inherent right to self-defense.
But I have noticed, and you might have too Sean, that we here in North America are quite invinsible from any shore-bourne threat headed out for our countries from nearby Island Nations. For the readers that have tuned in from the other side of the world could you please explain who your nearest neighbours are. And I for one know there is New Zealand somewhere below you. Name some of the countries closeby that have an armed population.
Tell me Sean what happened to the firearms in your federal armoury reserve? I heard your National Defense has been compromised: No privately owned firearms coupled with an empty federal armoury.
20 some odd million Aussie folks standing down at what? I would say up to your North maybe one billion no maybe more than one billion neighbours with your best interests at heart.
Surfs up suckers!

Bill, why would I want to go to the USA when you paint such a lovely image of your nation? Crack heads and Anarchists armed to the teeth and on the prowl? Fortunately I've heard there's hope for you Bill. I've heard that your government is going to allow cheaper medication to be acquired from Canada. Just remember Bill, they're not all out to get you, even if it seems that way.

As for us Australians, I'm impressed that you knew it was us and not Austria (give yourself a pat on the back); you may be horrified to learn that gun control was and still is an immensely popular issue. The vast majority of Australians wanted it and paid for it. Did it stop all gun related crime, no we don't like is a magical kingdom Bill, but the stats have shown a noticeable drop in gun related deaths in the years since. The guns removed from society were the automatics and semi-automatics designed to enable a person to kill and kill rapidly. These guns have no place in civilian hands and serve no other function than carnage. But far from a gunless society we remain, farmers for one still have guns, under tough regulations to ensure they are kept under lock and key of course. And while I really don't like Howard and Co, control remains one of the few things I agree with him on.
If you actually have anything sensible to say, Bill, I'd like to hear it.

Posted by: Mathew on October 9, 2006 12:55 PM

Yeah, you're right. I'm sure all the gun-toting guards lurking about the place will be conducive to the kiddies' learning.

Posted by: cynic on October 9, 2006 1:27 PM

You would call Mass Murder the murder of 2 or more people? Granted 1 murder is one murder too many, but come on - Mass Murder would have to be defined by the slaying of at least several people. Now having said that, can you point me to where I can find more info about these mass slayings by knives and baseball bats in the USA as I have never heard of them.

What other uses do guns have other than for killing?

Posted by: miette on October 9, 2006 1:34 PM

All this obsession about Chicago and New York.... What about Detroit and Miami, two of the most crime-riddled places in the US today, so I've read. As for Bill, the fantastically hilarious right-wing crazy Captain America - way too much spare time. Go fight the crims, Bill, GUNS ABLAZING - BANG BANG COWBOY!!...since you're so passionate about it, instead of carrying on like an armchair warrior!

Or, on the other hand, entertain us some more. I laugh everytime I come on this site. Some of the insults that have been hurled are pure gold! YAY!!!!111

Posted by: Bron on October 9, 2006 1:34 PM

"Actually, Sian's smart mouth would get her in deeper trouble with a predator. "

Ah...now I understand why you need all the guns. Sweet dreams Bill.

Posted by: cynic on October 9, 2006 1:59 PM

The worst I've done here is call someone who is clearly a nutjob a nutjob.
I hope you are enjoying the debate and learn something about how scary some people are.

Posted by: Sean on October 9, 2006 2:32 PM

Interesting idea Bill lets run with it.
So you would be armed, Visible so? Or would you keep it concealed, as the Law there requires?

If you have the gun out, risking arrest and drawing unwanted attention from the lowlifes, then a would be attacker would probably assume that you're mugging me and move on to find a someone not already taken. Or, more likely, just shoot you first as the obvious threat and then I'd be a witness and have to be dealt with too. Thanks a lot, now instead of just being mugged I get killed too.

Assuming you have the gun concealed, how would it protect you from the Crack Heads? (Still think drug use is a victimless crime?) If the assailant shoots first then its 50/50 as to who gets shot, having a gun wouldn't help the hapless target at all.

But lets say that we get ambushed, (the sneaky swine) and the fiend has us at gunpoint and demands our money. Are you going to then "reach for it" and get us both killed? Because I'd ask the mugger if I could smack you first. Now of course if our mugger is high on something and is going to shoot us anyway, it's still a 50/50 chance as to who gets shot first unless you draw the attackers attention first by going for your gun. Assuming it's me, are you telling me you could draw and fire in that time? If not, well Id be fool to just stand there slack jawed now wouldnt I. But I would alert the authorities to come and get your body though and give a description of the killer.

You know I once carried a several thousand dollars by hand; well it was in a plain unmarked cloth bag, down a busy city street to be deposited at the bank. No armed escort, no weapons. You know how I did it? My boss didn't tell me how much was in the bag and the bag was sealed. I walked down the street swinging that bag like there was next to nothing in it. No one bothered me. I was surprised when the teller mentioned the amount though and had a few words for the boss when I got back. But she was right, not knowing how much was in the bag and acting like there was nothing in it was the perfect camouflage. So now I always act like I have nothing of value on me even when I do, I certainly dont wear bling in the seamy areas. Now that's using your brains.

Finally, dont assume that all people who support gun control are afraid of guns. I grew up around guns and with guns in the house. My father made sure that my sister and I knew how to handle them safely from an early age. He knew that know matter how well protected and locked away they were there was a risk of us getting our hands on them. And they were kept in a locked safe rather than under a pillow. Nor could he control what might happen at a friends place. So the gun itself does not scare me any more than a chainsaw would, but the person using them? Now that is something else altogether and it is far better to limit access to a tool that has as its sole purpose the ending of life, to people who actually need them and are trusted to use them responsibly.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 9, 2006 2:36 PM

but some gun loving folk are tools

Posted by: Sean on October 9, 2006 2:37 PM

Well Bill, you do live in a dangerous country. Perhaps you should take a look at moving somewhere a little less scary, perhaps somewhere with less guns about the place?

Posted by: Sean on October 9, 2006 2:43 PM

what a crock, Bill. But funny nonetheless.

Posted by: Sean on October 9, 2006 2:52 PM

skeets, you really need to employ an editor.

Posted by: Sean on October 9, 2006 2:59 PM

the point you consistently miss here, Bill, is that in a country where there weren't guns in every other home the thieves wouldn't have felt the need to arm themselves with a gun. A baseball bat or a scary looking knife would have been enough.

The bad people are always going to be bad and they're always going to be willing to go to extremes to prevent themselves being captured.

These theives didn't break in with the intent to commit murder but when confronted by their victim they lash out with whatever they have to hand because there is a good chance their victim is armed.

In Australia, you hear of bugger all murders as a result of break and enters.

That guy was just wired wrong. Sometimes people are. There's no reason for it, it just happens. Sad, but true.

As for the gun debate. If you are a responsible well adjusted person, you can handle vices without them taking over your life. Not everyone who had a bad childhood grows up to be a fringe dweller.

It's too easy for the maladjusted in any society to blame everyone and everything but themselves for their sick fantasies.

If that dude was a true sicko instead of just a sad farty loser, he would have kept himself alive and revelled in the publicity of such heinous crimes.

The world is much better off without him. As for those poor kids, when you come up against a psycho, there are inevitably innocent victims.

Posted by: Killer Bees on October 9, 2006 3:39 PM

I'm a waste of space aren't I...?

Posted by: Skeeeter Boisverte on October 9, 2006 4:10 PM

Communism? Nah that failed totally, well if you ignore China anyway and even they are adopting market reforms. Freedom, property rights and self-ownership are fine concepts but without the state we're talking about anarchy where those rights you mentioned are defined only by the amount of firepower you have. I suspect you and I want the same kind of government though, a government where there is no them and us. Like it says in one of your former Presidents speeches a government of the people, by the people. I won't ask you to forgive my ignorance as to who said it unless you can name our first Prime Minister without the internet or other reference. I'll trust you to be honest.

As for the drugs thing, you are freaking me out. It disturbs me greatly that we agree on the conflicting anti-drug message and I was saying only the other day that it was darkly hilarious that a government sponsored anti-drug message was immediately followed up by an ad telling me essentially to just pop a pill or two if I have a headache. In my mind though the question becomes one of harm.

Will this product be harmful to the individual? Yes. Then slap a warning on it and let the user decide.

Will this product's use harm or endanger other people who may or may not be using the product? Yes, then ban it, or at least prohibit that activity while using the product. Like prohibiting driving while under the influence of alcohol.

As for the medicating of children, agreed. At best its borderline abuse through lazy half-arsed parenting. There are legitimate cases where medication is needed but I suspect that more than a few doctors are on a very good thing here.

It also becomes a question of social responsibility, do we as a society, ignore the self-destruction of others or not. Should our motto be "live and let die"? I don't know that I like that, if that makes me some kind of a socialist, then tough. I do know that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Im not sure what you would call my political views I dont like either the right or left wings. I would prefer the middle ground I guess.

Don't worry though; I still think you are wrong on guns. Civilians in a lawful and peaceful society have no need to arm themselves. That we live in a society with crime shouldn't be allowed to change us any more than the existence of terrorism should be reason to abandon justice and "due process" to borrow the term. It saddens me that this is exactly what is happening though.

Oh and don't worry about the UN taking over. They couldn't organise a root in a brothel.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 9, 2006 4:22 PM

This from the childish knuckle dragging Neanderthal. Are you a real person or someones grotesque caricature of an offensive loud-mouthed American idiot? Youre all mouth and no substance. Oh I must be unthinking because I have the audacity to disagree. Yes that must be it. Repeat it until you believe it. Just like NRA properganda.

Posted by: Mathew on October 9, 2006 4:43 PM

OMG. The last thing I'd want to see is my granny armed with a gun. She'd shoot the meter readers, the postman, delivery guys, collectors for charity, the neighbours she doesn't like. Then there's my other gran who wouldn't remember where she put the gun. And I have an elderly uncle with Parkinson's. That doesn't bear thinking about.

Hey the oldies are bad enough behind the steering wheel of a car. Under no circumstances should they have guns.

Posted by: cynic on October 9, 2006 5:24 PM

miette since Sean just criticises my form and structure, never yet having refuted my opinions, I have totally given up on what I might suggest that would make him let me keep my guns. Ah, now you wonder where in the USA there might have been a mass murder by the use of a knife? Remember those two tall buildings that fell down in New York? Was the explanation for the airplane take overs not the use of "box cutters"? A box cutter is a knife, no?
What is that you say: "That's not a knife."

Posted by: skeeeter boisverte on October 9, 2006 7:15 PM

Sean,

There is a tired old lobby group here in Canada: The Coalition For Gun Control. They have tried everything imaginable in Canuckistan similar to that which you have been trying on this blog. They, as you, tried to make points that would convince people that the world would be a nicer place if the only people with firearms were the military and the police. They got quite far as the firearms owners were not prepared to have to defend their right of privacy and their right to private property. But eventually the Coalition for Gun Control lost their attempt to disarm this nation.
I wonder if you have been reading their works in progress. You have lost by your postings to date.
For example why would I need a cork on the end of a butter knife that you would allow me to possess after you stated I should not have access to a butter knife? Is it for the fact that I could use a butter knife to do harm? If so why did you after stating that I should not have a butter knife then approve me for a butter knife purchase? The answer my friend is that you are a metro fool. You are a waffling Metro Fool that uses your right to free speach to attack the very hand held tool that has made humans equal on a grander scale. When the upper class used force to repress the underclass in Europe years ago the streets burned as the clashes came to a head. The balance of an armed populace keeping the authorities in check offers a lesson in history that has escaped your attention.

Good luck Sean. I wish you well. You appear not to have the brain capacity that nature has given a goose; but I will defend your right to express such nonsense as spouted here by you with the corked butter knife I so proudly now legally own. Or conversely I could aquire an editor to add heft to my opinions.
Wouldn't all of history's suffering and plight be better for the world then? My editor would allow such wisdom to come forth from me in a more understood manner through my expressions done with printed word on these marvelous blogs put on offer by the good folks at smh.
Then I could impart wisdom on par with your beautiful flowing execution of the nuanced language that which of is the printed placement of such words holding fast to the accepted norms of spelling puncuation and style.

Well I just had this sentence scrutinized and examined by my good friend Eddy Greenspon (editor in chief of the Globe and Mail) and he polished it up so as to make it more appropriate for the likes of you:

"I too Sean made previous reference to the fact that butter is not to my liking." remarked johnemslie, as he departed the lonely vestige that encompasses the Metro Fool that is Sean in all his glory (I presume you are a man, but not with any reference to your trait as such, but merely for a lack of knowing any female Sean) as he reaches ever more skyward and blah de blah blah blah.

FREE NELSON MANDELLA

Posted by: Skeeeter Boisverte on October 9, 2006 7:59 PM

"I'm a waste of space aren't I...?"

It seems someone has hijacked my moniker.
Note the time. Remember I am on the east coast Canadian Atlantic Day Light Savings (ADLST) time. I was not up at that hour, nor was I awake, so that must not have been me. Or was it?
Rampart? Rampart?
Give me fifty millilitres of ringer's lactate. STAT.

hi Skeets, I appreciate your efforts at cutting down on the ranting between points.

I have no problem whatsoever with people living in a rural environment owning licenced firearms that are NOT automatic, if they are kept under lock and key and not loaded. Likewise, members of gun clubs can own licenced weapons and store them at the club.

In response to the hijacking of the planes that flew in to the twin towers - People were once told to essentially be passive and compliant in the event of a hijacking. I would doubt very much if people would be compliant any more. I am certain that if faced with hijackers armed with boxcutters or any kind of knife, passengers would overwhelm the attackers with sheer numbers. Fathers would risk sacrificing their own lives to prevent the crashing of a plane carrying their wives and kiddies.

Posted by: Sean on October 10, 2006 9:30 AM

skeets, you are a strange person.

Posted by: Sean on October 10, 2006 10:01 AM

Hey thanks for the mention Dom, my short range missles really are inadequate.

I haven't seen this many "you-can-take-our-lives but-you-can-never-take-our-SOMETHING" posts since a smoking satire!

Would you consider writing a peice about the pro's and con's of lighting a cigarette with a firearm?

I'm sure we could hit a 500 right-wing-reply record.

PS: Rest the souls of those tragically departed from this incident.

Posted by: Jebus on October 10, 2006 11:21 AM

Don't you mean Nelson Mandela?

Posted by: Bron on October 10, 2006 11:23 AM

you must be sleepblogging again, Skeets.

Posted by: Sean on October 10, 2006 12:12 PM

"Don't you mean Nelson Mandela?"

I give up do I?

Posted by: skeets doubleboisverte on October 10, 2006 1:37 PM

OH Dear Sean

Does Flight 93 ring a bell?

Posted by: skeetes's repost ad nauseum on October 10, 2006 1:41 PM

Off topic does but anyone know why are Aussies reported to live in houses sans basement?

Killer Bees.
Care to explain? There is a lot of traffic here on this site now.

Seeing as how your focus is maintained on the blog topic, I just thought I would ask that of you for to explain this foundationless society based on the ground up down under.

Let me surmise willya: A lot of listening to the ABC. Guns are bad. Nelson Mandella speels his name with one l.

On topic I am supportive of your more realistic understandings and have known for some time now that "slaging" is not something to you genetic; but dare I say again more learned.

Take Care Killer Bees.
Cheerio

Posted by: johnemslie on October 10, 2006 1:56 PM

it certainly does. These guys eventually had a crack at the hijackers but the cockpit had already been seized.
These days the security of the cockpit is a tad more rigourous. I would also suggest that people would take action in a much faster fashion knowing what they know now if it was to be repeated.
Anyway, Flight 93 is surrounded by shiteloads of conspiracy theories, Bill would probably tell you it was the airforce that shot that one down.

Posted by: Sean on October 10, 2006 5:25 PM

Hi Skeeter, how many people did they actually kill with the boxcutters? I am having trouble finding the facts online, instead there's lots of pages with hysterical rants from both sides regarding what happened, but no facts!

Whilst I am uncomfortable with people owning guns, I think that they should at least have to be registered, which means that they have a thorough police background check, psych tect etc. Whilst this won't completely stop all gun deaths, I would imagine it would certainly reduce it. You can keep your guns, but I think your profile should be kept as well.

Posted by: miette on October 11, 2006 11:51 AM

In the off chance I get billing read this miette. Hi miette. Well from what I understand there was everyone on the plane killed by the use of the boxcutters. Believe me I recieved this information from reliable sources that Bill's third future wife and his dog were in the area looking for spent casings to re-load but escaped unscathed. Seems canon fire comparitive to that of an unarmed F-15 was heard by some farmers in the area and this had led to the spurious rumours that there was indeed a possible shoot down of flight 93 by a gung ho hepped up part time pilot on go pills. And we all know how those pilots are at taking out Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan.
But I don't know exactly the circumstances of any of the news other than what I see hear read watch and listen to.

Now let me move on to your next opinion.
You are uncomfortable with people owning guns. Why? You want that they should be registered. I presume you mean the owners and their firearms. Hmmm. I live in a small village where there is many firearms. I never registered nothing and as you can surmise I am not a very shy person regards this matter. I have been psychiatrically tested before on numerous occasions. Do you think the police know I have guns and am an ex-psychiatric patient? Seems they do. Otherwise their investigative skills need some spit and polish as I am on video tape with picture and sound locked in one of their interogation rooms on numerous occassions stating so. What would all this extra effort and wasted and abused power wielding bring forth. Could everyone in Canada that has an unregistered gun and a past of an emotional breakdown be examined and evaluated and then searched repeatedly for firearms? Fortunately that is never going to be the case. Now I hope somewhere on this blog there still is a posting of mine that tries to explain the futility of a cop in every pocket. A cop in every house. A cop online monitoring everything being done online, and a cop at the hospital checking people as they check-out. But I have to go to work right away. My drive is coming and it is a glorious fresh crisp early fall morn. You could go to Guardian Unlimited and search news blog. "the autopsies will reveal nothing." That blog has an excellent article about one of our school shootings just recently having happened. We have shootings in Canadian schools on a regular basis. I hope you can find that site and have a gander. I would be interested to know your thoughts about the registering of as Sean says a "nutjob" when he refers to Bill whom I doubt has blown away any school children with his semi automatic double barrel over and under pump 10 gauge goose gun. miette if you have trouble finding the blog I mention feel free to make up a email account somewhere and contact me through jump_real_high2@yahoo.ca

I will send you a direct link.

Black Helicopters: They said it was a weather balloon.

Posted by: skeeeter boisverte on October 11, 2006 7:58 PM

As Canada's last standing defense we have captured Skeeeter.
Relax Sean. We have taken all of his corked on the end butter knives.

Yes, Americans are ignoring Michael Moore, because they've learned the awful truth about this stupid white man. Moore is full of it - check out www.moorewatch.com

America is awash with guns, and for the past 10 years gun-related deaths (and crime) have been steadily declining, to the point where they are at the lowest point in decades.

This is despite more Americans owning more guns than ever before - with nearly 40 of the 50 States in the Union permitting citizens to carry a concealed firearm when going about their daily business.

As "gun free zones" (no gun allowed, even with a concealed permit) schools are of course easy targets. Funny how mass killers never make a target of a police station, military base or shooting range. More guns = less gun crime.

Just like the US - while our rates of gun-related violence are on the rise, theirs have been steadily declining.

And don't even get me started on the gun-free United Kingdom, where the loyal subjects cower behind sandbags while gangs wage war with automatic weapons.

It's very easy to believe that guns are the root of all evil, and passing a few laws to restrict ownership will make it all go away. Confronting the reality is much harder - the only deterrent to armed criminals is an armed citizenry.

Only softheaded fools believe otherwise.

Posted by: shillard on October 12, 2006 8:03 PM

It's "capisci"...Italian...they usually drop the final 'e'. just thought I'd mention it.

Posted by: Imperia..hegemoni...USA! on October 13, 2006 3:08 AM

Shillard, you missed the boat on this blog.
Tool.

Posted by: Sean on October 13, 2006 9:32 AM

Hey Sean, I get the feeling that the NRA propaganda budget allocated to educate us poor ignorant unarmed savages has run out.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 13, 2006 11:57 AM

If only the NRA would flick some cash our way - and some aptitude. The fools who are asleep at the controls of the Australian "gun lobby" are as effective as the tinfoil hat that Sean wears.

It's those damn Lizard Men from Atlantis that tell him to dislike guns.

Posted by: shillard on October 13, 2006 12:55 PM

Oh get over it already. The citizens of this country made a democratic decision to reduce the availability of guns. Especially with automatic and semi-automatic firearms. Now if a seriously sick fellow didn't have access to the guns he had, would things have turned out a bit differently?

And stop maligning the Lizard people, they've done you no harm. Any way, we all know you only want guns because you're afraid that Kang and Kodos will invade the minute you give them up.

Oh, I'm not worried about Lizard Men - especially my ZALP mates. It's those damn dirty apes that bother me. That's why Charlton Heston became President of the NRA. If he'd buried a few M4s before venturing off into space, he could have dug them up and sorted those monkeys out - quick smart.

Democratic decision? Didn't turn out quite the way they wanted, did it? There's still no shortage of automatic (which have never been lawfully available here) and semi-automatic firearms around - for the latter, both legal and illegal.

'Seriously sick' individuals can get all the guns they want anytime. If the owners of the Broad Arrow cafe had kept a shottie under the counter to sort out any local smackies trying to make off with the day's takings, things might have turned out very differently indeed.

As for you, Seano, if the boat has sailed, what are you still doing here on the shore?

Posted by: shillard on October 13, 2006 8:45 PM

Then you have proved yourself a fool. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believe they are free. That suits you to a tee. You clearly do not comprehend history, if you did, you would realize that governments have killed over 100 million of their own citizens after first disarming them. Are all Australians as stupid and immature as you, Mathew my boy?

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 6:41 AM

Please don't come to America, even if you might be able to afford it one day. We don't need another Ritalin taking sissy here.

Then the vast majority of Australians are idiots. I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but, knowing you, you made them up. Sorry, but according to your government violent crime is up over 40% in Australia, slave boy. Of course you agree with Howard on control, you desperately need someone to tell you how to live and what to do. Since you are incapable of independent thought, you need to be controlled and I am sure Howard is more than happy to do it. It would seem that your school system is even worse than ours. You really don't have a clue do you?

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 6:49 AM

The same can be said of you Dom.

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 6:53 AM

Thinking you have the authority to rule over others is not a simple difference of opinion.

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 6:57 AM

Move to a nation of pansies? I don't think so. All of these posts only stand to prove one thing: Not a single one of you has ever been the victim of a violent crime.

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 7:01 AM

Yes, some flavor of communism if you believe the State has the right to force you to do things against your will. As long as you are not infringing on anybody else's rights, then no foul. I am not so sure we need the State to have freedom, property rights and self ownership. That was Lincoln, by the way, in his Gettysburg address during the War of Northern Aggression.

Agreed, all drugs should be legal and sold in liquor stores along with the other drugs. I do not subscribe to the drunk driving laws in this country, if you haven't done anything but have a couple of drinks and are driving home, what right does the State have to claim you are over some arbitrary limit?

People will do what they want, you cannot do anything but make the matter worse. If someone is bent on self destruction, then that is up to them. They will only hate you for interfering.

If civilians should not be allowed to possess guns, then why should the police? Or the Army? Governments killed over 100 million of their own citizens in the 20th century alone. They disarmed them first, of course.

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 7:25 AM

Again, I don't agree with the policies of the US government and I was against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I have expressed this to my elected officials, all of whom have ignored me.

Drugs are a victimless crime. The buyer willingly seeks out a supplier who willingly sells the drugs to the buyer. No victim, just two people engaging in a business transaction. If you bothered to think this though, you would realize that this so-called war on some drugs has caused more harm to the people than anything else. It gives rise to huge criminal organizations, tramples people's liberty, erodes the protections against excessive police force and has been the cause of hundreds of innocent people's deaths via no knock raids in the middle of the night on people's homes, many of whom had nothing to do with drugs. Also, research has shown that around 8% of the population will do drugs, regardless of their legality. Despite 100s of billions of dollars spent on this travesty, drugs are more available and cheaper than before we started this insanity. If drugs were legal, like alcohol, then the rise of the police state would not have happened, the government would make a lot of tax dollars and hundreds of innocent people would still be alive.

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 7:39 AM

Oh really? Where in the world do you get that crazy idea? Did you know, Sean, that all handguns are completely banned in the city of Chicago? These scumbags knew that, so they knew with absolute certainty that my frined couldn't have a gun. If you were correct, then the criminals that killed my friend should have been carrying a knife or a baseball bat, but they weren't. There goes that theory.

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 7:53 AM

You really have no frame of reference on this subject do you?

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 7:57 AM

Another comment from a bigoted, stupid, naive and immature hater.

Posted by: Bill on October 18, 2006 8:02 AM

No more stupid and immature than you Bill. Yet a gain you presume that anyone who doesn't share your particularly paranoid vision of history is either a fool or a child. But still you provide little to support your assertions. Over a hundred million you say, are we talking wars? Still tell me how having guns protected those Koresh following fools, or was that a case of not enough guns. Tell me exactly which nations disarmed then slaughtered their populations. Give me something to support your arguments Bill old boy.

Posted by: Mathew on October 18, 2006 3:16 PM

No Bill, that's America that dopes up its children because they can't "raise 'em right".

Bill the vast majority of Australians point at you and laugh. Actually when you look at the statistics you can see that overall violent crime is about the same as it ever was. the real difference is that the number of gun related crimes have dropped considerably.

Actually, Howard is systematically destroying the education system of this country but I was lucky enough to complete my education before he could do too much damage but thanks for the concern.

You criticise my ability to think independantly yet swallow all the fear and gloom served up by the ratings whores laughingly called journalists; about how dangerous things are now. And what a wonderfully circular bit of logic that leads to. Society is more dangerous to live in because the crooks have guns, therefore we must all have easier access to guns. Oh no, now the crooks have more guns and things are more dangerous, quick we need more guns to be available. Wake up Bill. Smell the decay of society and see that people like you are part of the cause not the solution.

Posted by: Mathew on October 18, 2006 3:33 PM

Of course the state has the right to force you to do things against your will. Otherwise you'd do what ever the hell you please. It would be nice to live in a utopian world where everyone respected everyone else's rights but it just doesn't exist. And what do you do when one persons rights conflict with someone elses?

It is interesting that you bring up the US Civil War. It's a perfect example of the clash of rights. I'm not a student of US history but even I know the war was about far more than the abolishment of slavery. However, the slavery matter illustrates my point succinctly. The South wanted to keep slaves, much of its economy was based on slave labour while the North wanted to end slavery, and democratically the majority supported the abolishment. Should a minority be able to just say, "No, you can't tell us what to do"? Now you might, I suspect, say that the Confederate states should have been allowed to form their own nation. But then suppose that some confederates state wanted to, oh I dont know, embrace polygamy and then break away to get their own way. Where would it end? Every town doing it's own thing. Anarchy.

Oh you've really gone too far on the drink-driving thing. I've seen first hand the damage some sloshed f-wit behind the wheel can do. Don't kid yourself; they're not just destroying themselves. I couldn't care less about that, in fact if I knew they'd do it, I'd personally give them pistol with one round in it, and so they can get it over with. Better an arbitrary limit than someone ploughing through pedestrians or into other cars, though with all the medical science behind it really isn't that arbitrary. You'd really cry "Fascist!" here though. In this country you don't get to put on a song and dance to try and fool the cop, every cop here has a breath tester and when instructed to, you must comply. And I cheer at the news of every one of those selfish bastards that they catch. They should be barred from driving for life. Driving is not a right but a privilege and anyone with even an ounce of decency or responsibility would find an alternative to driving while drunk. There are no excuses. Hate me all you want for interfering but no one has the right to risk other peoples lives and the State should and will intervene in such cases.

A police force without guns, check the UK, yes they have specialist response units with guns but the ordinary copper in the UK is armed only with a radio and a baton. It seems to work quite well for them. An army with out guns? Oh I pray for the day when armies are no longer needed, but you're just being silly. The primary purpose of the State should be the defence of its citizens; hence a well trained and well armed, armed forces. As for the governments killing blah blah blah, it still sounds like propaganda to me. Tell me though have there been any instances where an armed populace has prevented this or is it a bit like the magic stone that I have to keep away tigers. Well you don't see any tigers here do you? Democracy is a perilous form of government. It is all too prone to sliding into despotism but guns wont stop it. Only an educated and politically informed and politically active citizenry can safeguard democracy from the Howards and Bushs of the world. Do you know where I can get some?

I've never conversed with an adult anarchist before. Most anarchists I've encountered were teenagers back when I was one. It's been interesting though.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 18, 2006 4:38 PM

Mathew, I can't believe you are actually asking that question. It proves you failed history miserably. Let's see, Hitler 6 million dead. Lenin and Stalin 40 million plus in their purges. Mao 30 million minimum. Pol Pot 3 million. These numbers do not include war dead and are after the government granted your deepest wish and banned the civilian ownership of firearms. Ida Amin, Rwanda. . .Shall I continue, or do you finally get it? Don't even bring up Waco unless you actually the whole story of what happened there, from your missives, it is clear you do not. You are a very foolish and ignorant child. Come back when you grow up.

Posted by: Bill on October 19, 2006 4:25 AM

The vast majority of Australians know less about America than I do about Australia. I do not claim to be an expert on your country, but you sure claim to be one on mine.

Obviously, you didn't make the cut as your rantings about history show you to be lacking in any depth of knowledge of the subject.

No, little Mathew, I do not swallow the claims of the journalists, if I did, I would "feel" like you do. Instead I am able to think for myself and make my own decisions and not have to rely on the media and government to tell me what to do. It is actually people like you who "feel" they have the right to dictate how other people in other countries should live thier lives when it is really none of your business that is the major problem.

Posted by: Bill on October 19, 2006 4:34 AM

Anti, your projecting again. The simple fact of the matter is most people go about their daily business without the need of State intervention, if fact, it hobbles them if anything. You have swallowed the State's propaganda hook, line and sinker. They really need you to believe this nonsense or their power trip is over.

Well, I agree with you there, you are clearly no student of US history. The War of Northern Aggression was not fought over slavery, as some would have you believe. It was mainly fought over the issue of State's rights and the limited powers of the federal government. Thanks to Lincoln, we now enjoy a very strong, powerful central government that wields power over every facet of people's lives. America today would be unrecognizable to the people who founded it.

Sorry, I don't buy into roadblocks, arbitrary limits or be arrested for doing nothing wrong other than driving home. Before you get all holier than thou on me, I have lost several friends to drunk driving and I am still absolutely against this police state nonsense. Maybe you have privileges in Australia, here we have rights and the right to travel freely is one of them. Of course, in the typical fashion of the State, they ignore the parts of our Constitution that interferes with their power grabs.

Do I have to do everything for you? Of course there are insistences of the people rising up, armed, and thwarting the State, look up Tennessee in the late 1940s for just one example. You guys never cease to amaze me at your lack of knowledge about the world we live in.

Posted by: Bill on October 19, 2006 4:56 AM

Yes, I would call the murder of two or more people mass murder. What number suits you? Is it three we shall count to? Or shall we proceed to four? Still not enough. How about 5, 6, 7, 8? Or do we need to hit double digits? Maybe triple digits? I give up, where do you draw the line?

Do you get it yet? Or do you need more? Do you guys have access to google down under? With all of the requests for information, it would appear not.

Posted by: Bill on October 19, 2006 5:05 AM

Why thank - you Bron! Yes, you have a good point Detroit and Miami are good examples also as is LA(the only ones to escape unscathed from the 1992 riots were the shopkeepers smart enough to own weapons)San Fransico, New York, etc. The list goes on. Most of our crime problems are in the urban areas where guns are severly restricted and drugs are rampant. Wait, they banned drugs in the 1930s, how can this be?!
Glad I could lighten your day.

Posted by: Bill on October 19, 2006 5:20 AM

In Australia you hear of bugger all murders as a result of break and enters: Sean

What was that article in smh the other day about? Police looking for two men in their twenties.

Posted by: skeeter boisverte on October 19, 2006 5:47 AM

"When instructed to you must comply"

Or else what happens.
Can't a drunk drinks driver refuse the command to provide a breath sample?
Do any people that "blow" get off the fate of conviction, say like because they were previously married to a former prime minister, as has been the case here in Canada.

Posted by: Pierre Eliot Trudeau watcher on October 19, 2006 5:59 AM

Moron, there was no mass disarmament campaign in either Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or any other example you offer. If you think Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia were disarmed nations then you really are stupid. Crack open a few books and read dumb-arse. But then twits like you never let the facts get in the way of a good paranoid anarchist rant. Talk about failing history. Tell me how having guns would have saved the Jews in Europe. Tell me how having guns would have stopped Stalin given one of his early purges was against his own army (hardly a disarmed force). History just doesnt support your John Wayne view of it. Even before the 20th Century, having weapons was no guarantee of safety and freedom or are you ignorant enough to think what happened to the Knights Templar was a one off. A well armed military order wiped out in a sudden purge. It doesnt matter how many weapons you have someone will always have more or better.

No I didn't go in to the whole story of Waco but essentially your government came and killed them, having guns didn't help them at all did it. You are a delusional old fool that hasn't realised that the wild west is long over and that your pedantic tantrums are unconvincing and poor substitutes for logic. Come back when you have something sensible to say.

Posted by: Mathew on October 19, 2006 11:29 AM

But for someone who claims to be able to think for themselves you sure do spout a lot of idiotic rubbish and NRA propaganda. Your own historic ineptitude is simply mind blowing but do Americans even look outside their own nation's history because the US is not representative of the rest of the world, thank Christ. I can only suggest that you return to school and complete your 4th grade education, it's only a small step but education is worth it I assure you.

Bill have I ever tried to take your guns, you dolt. No I've only ever asserted that I don't need them and that the average Australian citizen has no need to get about armed to the teeth in order to be secure. This is based in fact and your paranoid rantings and idiotic generalisations have failed to support your position. Personally I don't really care if Americans feel the need to own their own armouries, just don't try and force your screwed up world view on to everyone else. We don't need your armed crackheads running around here. You really are the dumbest American I've ever conversed with and that's impressive given some of the shining wits your country has produced. Fortunately I know that you are an aberation.

Posted by: Mathew on October 19, 2006 11:47 AM

Well, you get arrested and charged with hindering police. They can forceable take a blood sample and also charge you with drink driving if the test comes back positive. Actually a former Prime Minister of ours got into trouble for not wearing a seat belt. He paid the fine, does that count?

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 19, 2006 11:56 AM

And most states aren't out to clap us all in chains Bill. If they try, then yes it is up to us, the citizens of a democracy, to stop them. If I have swallowed pro-State progaganda then how is that any different to your swallowing of anti-state propaganda.

Bill, please read what I wrote. I stated that I was aware that the US civil war was about more than slavery even though I'm not a student of US history. What you and many Americans need to realise is that while science has proven that there is a centre of the universe it simply is not the USA. I know it's hard to take but the Catholic church got over it, so can you. You need to understand that even with the absolute landslide of crappy American TV that we get bombarded with it is unreasonable and even a little arogant to expect the world at large to know American History as well as an American. Still, aren't you a little surprised that; given you American's having superior knowledge of the world we live in, that you guys manage to completely f*ck it up time and again. Tell you what though, if you look up Eureka 1854 then I'll look up Tennessee and we'll compare notes. Because I think you'll find that in most cases, armaments are no gaurantee of freedom or security, Poland 1938, the IRA, Iraq today. Oh and in case you didn't bother to look him up, our first Prime Minister was a fellow by the name of Edmund Barton. And should you respond with "Pfeh who the hell cares", please remember that is how most of the world feels about US history.

How is it "Police-state nonsense" to stop criminal disregard for the safety of others? Fair enough if all you risked was your own life, then fine, but that's not how it works is it. I'm not trying to be holier than you and I don't know the circumstances in which you lost your friends, but I do know that alcohol impairs a persons ability to operate a vehicle. This is medically proven. Your reaction time slows down and your capacity to accurately assess risks becomes impaired. You may have the right to travel freely but do you have the right to endanger the lives of others. Remember my point on conflicting rights. I imagine people have the right to not get run over or have their families wiped out by drunken drivers. Are you telling me your rights are more important that the rights of others. And I think this is the crux of the whole debate, guns, drink driving or what ever. Does the rights of any one individual supercede the rights of all others? You in your country are free to answer that question any way you want, but so will we in ours. Being concerned about the rights of others before my own might make me a slave in your eyes being concerned about your own rights to the exclusion of others make you selfish in mine.

Could you aquire Sam the cross-dresser to help your police in the insertion of the needle? He seems as stooge target for the firing of taser at all including suicidle seeking craz(ie)y persons bent on suicide by cop. (speeling altered to avoid tracking by crazy government appointed crazy police tracking online crazy persons with a crazy police available crazy person trackering system[s])
Or do your police punch a person suspected of point 03 point 05 or in what state is it point 08, to obtain the CSI DNA count from a tissue discarded in to the waste basket binliner obtained after the person pulled over refused a request to "blow" and was then punched in the nose after refusing to stand and dance because (hey what do you think this is? pumped in TV from America Bad Boys Bad Boys Wha...) just maybe the Aussie cop had it out for them.
That is what Bill mentions as arbitrary. The amount of blood alcohol per litre (per something else for you metric set) of blood as obtained by a machine that possibly has malfunctioned as any machine can and theoretically could even if the science is sound, is in varying measurements used to indict a suspect and then I suppose convict the arbitrarily road-blocked suspect of: well: driving with a blood alcohol limit that exceeds that states arbitrarily set amount, that we all here know a conviction could be skirted {fuddle duddle Margaret] before or during trial depending on the available amount of cash that could be expended on a reasonable defence that could prove a reasonable doubt in the reasonable people that form a jury to judge a peer.

The point being AC1, limits as such when judged are still a matter of interpretation. Don't get me wrong. I too know the outcome of a drunk drinks driver.
Irregardless one point is worth making and I am going to try and write what that is. Nobody can legislate anything anywhere and how. As a legal owner of a firearm I was born to, there will be no laws of any land that are made by any people in any government that will convince me I have been born at the wrong time. Those people that try to disarm me of my inherited firearms will not be listened to by me.

Everything counts AC1. It is just as the first attempt in by golly you guessed it jolly olde england to do so had then failed and as now will be failed. I refer to you the Doomesday Book.

Posted by: skeeter Boisverte on October 19, 2006 2:08 PM

Skeeeeeeeter, I suspected it was you. And it's good to see you using paragraphs. But you should know that a litre is a metric measurement. I don't know how that converts to the Hogs head or whatever archaic measurement from the dark ages you use.

The procedure, from memory is that you are asked to provide a sample voluntarily. If you refuse the police go to a magistrate and request a court order that I gather is not that hard these days. If you still refuse to give the sample then 4 or 5 big guys will pin you down while the sample is taken and a contempt of court charge is added along with potential assaulting police charges, to your list of boo boos. Granted no machine is infallible however the risk of mechanical error is quite small and the sample can be tested several times to ensure accurate readings. Please not that in this country, if the sample "goes missing" or is rendered unusable then the charges are thrown out.

Yes, the testing sites are arbitrary, they are called "Random Breath tests" and when directed to pull over and be tested you have no choice but to do so. It takes a minute or two and you're done, unless you've been a naughty boy and then it's off to the police station for a second test. A very small price to pay and willingly done so by the vast majority here. There is no song and dancing with the stars about it. We cut right through that crap and just go straight to the breath tester.

"Nobody can legislate anything anywhere and how" I'm sure they did skeeter on a vast array of topics, but if you want to test that theory, by all means go ahead, make their day. But I'm sure if you paint your face blue and declare that they can take your guns/land/hookers and gin but they'll never take your freedom furniture, we'll all be immensely amused as you get carted off.

Call me crazy but I always thought that the Doomesday book was about the recording of lands and property and the ownership thereof. It was a national tax assessment done by Billy the Conqueror so he could assess what taxes he could levy and refill his emptied coffers. Who knew invasion could be so expensive? Disarm the peasants? Of what? Pitchforks, scythes, bows and arrows, knives and axes. Taking these away from the peasants would only leave them unable to serve their feudal overlords. Few if any peasants had swords or any kind of decent armour. Besides several Saxon nobles rebelled and were knobbled by the Normans. Don't believe Orlando Bloom, peasants rarely stood up to knights and lived and the church would damn them to hell for rebelling against their lawful lords, any way.

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on October 19, 2006 3:53 PM

Dear Jason

You truely are a half-wit and the last person that should be allowed to own a gun. Maybe we should do away with law-enforcement altogether and all citizens should "fight-back" how they see fit. You talk about not reading history, try doing some reading yourself. Have you ever lived under a socialist or fascist regimen? Do you know what you are talking about at all? The freedoms you speak of are the freedoms to kill each other and to kill yourself. Go get some cancer, maybe cap off a few pedestrians on the way to the bar. As for your usual paranoia - maybe we should own tanks as well so when the commies come we'll be ready!! Get out of the cold war and into the 21st century. All the wars you quote are due to nuts like you too ready to use weapons to impose yourselves on others. Talk about freedom. As for coming to Australia - please don't - stay in your redneck little home in backwater USA.

Thanks for the rhetoric. (Gotta go now, someone's knocking on the door and it might be Stalin)

Jack

Posted by: Jack on October 19, 2006 4:22 PM

You tell 'em Jack.

Posted by: Mathew on October 19, 2006 4:41 PM

"Don't believe Orlando Bloom"
Who is Orlando Bloom. I don't get out much as you may have guessed. And I am glad I do not get out to a country where people hold you down and take something from your person.
Point being regards the Doomesday Book is that it was never completed. Lists are never completed. Lists are used to, in the case of firearms registration to thusly confiscate the firearms that were voluntarily put on that list.
Your country has chosen I suspect to take those firearms that were included on that list. Where are the firearms that were not registered: And don't say that some firearms in the hands of an rural population escaped the confiscation scheme. I think we all know there is never everything on a list.

The "amounts of alcohol per litre" of certain states as set to convict a person of drunk drinks driving is the "arbitrary" I mention. How is a person considered legally drunk at point 05 right here in this state (hypothetically speaking based on varying states' laws to my neighbour south) on this side of a line but if they pass through a nonmarked white man border coordinate to another state right there, now legally able to drive as that state just entered allows anyone not having more than point 08 to pass?
We too have "roadblocks" "checkstops" and random pullovers for the enfourcement of laws dealing with the queen's highways.
Sure there is some bluster on my part about not following the law of certain legislatures if that law in my assessment is a bad law. Bad laws are more often than not disregarded by law abiding folks that respect the greater law: the law of the land.
Some very dishonest lobbyists hijacked our parliament years ago. They had passed a law that was unenforceble in this land. That law has now been rendered moot. It will soon hopefully be stricken from Hansard. Stricken from orders to the remaining courts of which there is now very few to be dealt with by a prosecution that will soon be rendered helpless by the ability of police to also disregard bad laws.

And let us hope that Sean has stopped reading (he sure seems to have stopped posting here) for I fear if he finds out us lumpen have "pitchforks, scythes, bows and arrows, knives and axes" he himself will feel neutered - as he should - that with his ban on my right to have a cork on the end butter knife, a whole lot of other tools have escaped his attempt to disarm me.

Oh about that equivalency thing metric compared standard Imperial. It has only been thirty some years since our country got on to this Centigrade business. I do know though that 40 below is exactly minus 40.

To recap.
No state (or federal association of provinces as may be the case here in Canada) has the right to enforce a bad law. And fortunately we in Canada, the ones of us that have fought the attempt to disarm us, have by a non-coordinated peaceful protesting of the rules made by fools, came out on top.
If that means that 21 innocent students get killed [at the end of a gun] every 402 years while attending school in Canada, oh well.
And I don't feel for them; their loved ones, their family, or the people that knew someone in their circle.

And if your nation feels safer without the ability to pass from one generation to the next the heirlooms given from one relative to another younger, (or older as the case may be) relative I say bully for you.

But let me get back to the case of the missing firearms in your federal armourie. What happened to them? Where are they now? Why did your nation founders feel the urge to have them in the first place?
Seems to me "four or five big guys" should be able to sort things out in a fair dinkum manner, no?
Ah so, it is funny that you have as a collective lot disarmed yourselves in a world that is in my opinion only getting more precarious by the day.
Good ruck Aussies.

Posted by: skeeeter boisverte on October 19, 2006 8:12 PM

Who's the moron Mathew? You had better go back to high school history class and study a little harder this time. For there most certainly was massive disarmament campaigns in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. I would suggest you look up the Nazi gun control act of 1938 idiot. While you are at it, study your Russian history as to what Lenin did after he took power (Hint: It was a massive civilian disarmament). As for the Jews in Europe, perhaps you have not heard about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Perhaps you have not read some of the personal accounts of the Jews who went through the ghetto uprising or the concentration camps. Before any genocide can take place, the populace must first be disarmed. That is what you are arguing for whether you realize it or not, you are in favor of genocide. As for the rest of your drivel, you obviously must have missed Viet Nam and must not read the newspapers as the mighty America military isn't doing so well in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

You again prove your complete stupidity by even mentioning Waco as you clearly do not know anything about what happened there. Actually having guns did postpone the inevitable, but they were only a handful of people against a massive force arrayed against them. They did manage to hold the feds off for 51 days before being murdered for nothing more than a misdemeanor charge Koresh would have been willing to face if they had just asked him.

You really are one of the stupidest people I have ever come across anywhere in the world. You think you know so much about everything, but when put to the test, you fail miserably. Not only that, but you are also a coward, I think that explains alot of your anger. You are so ashamed of your inability to fulfill your role as a man and head of a family that you lash out vehemently against anyone who isn't a simpering yellow belly and who happens to be smarter than you are, too bad Mathew, you lose. Don't go away mad, just go away, loser.

DOM: I'm getting a bit sick of the trolling and abuse. Make your point, but stop slagging people off  it's not ironically funny any more.

Posted by: Bill on October 20, 2006 1:52 AM

I spout a lot of NRA propaganda? What is it exactly you are spouting? Nothing more than a lot of socialist propaganda. I clearly have bested you and now you are upset, too bad child.

You ARE arguing for exactly that, although you don't have the guts to do it yourself, you have no problem sending in proxy thugs with guns to do it for you. Your reading for comprehension skills need a little polishing also as I never said I want to force anyone in this country to own weapons, let alone anywhere else in the world. In fact, I distinctly stated, very clearly, that if you don't want to own a gun, that's fine with me, just don't try to have your proxy Praetorian guards come and steal mine from me at gunpoint.

And just what has been Australia's contribution to the world, other than being a fine vacation spot? I don't see any world class anythings coming out of your backward country, so who you crappin? Must be why a lot of you seem to have such a big chip on your shoulders. At least America, for all of its faults, has given you most of the modern luxuries you now take for granted.

Posted by: Bill on October 20, 2006 2:04 AM

Well, here in America they most certainly are. I cannot believe how far down the road to serfdom we have come in the last twenty years and it is getting worse every day Bush is in power. Although all the presidents before him haven't been any better. I am losing faith in democracy, quite honestly. Here in America, people used to give 2, 4, 6, 8, years of their lives in public service, then they returned to their private lives. Starting around the late 19th century, we started getting career politicians and I think this is a big problem as they become part of the power structure and have a vested interest in maintaining and growing their power. We are almost always faced with a choice the lesser of two evils. Well evil is still evil, no matter which way you look at it. So, we are reduced to basically having no choice in our elections. Also, no matter what a politician promises during the campaign, he always returns to his roots once safely back in office.

And I agreed with you and added a little more. You are right anti, there are no guarantees in this world, but if you are prepared, you at least have a fighting chance to survive.

It is medically proven that different people have different levels of alcohol that impair them. For some it might well be .08, the national limit here. For others, it might be .15 or .04 or .10. The federal government, though extortion and coercion, has managed to hold the States ransom for federal highway dollars and got them all to agree to a national limit of .08. You see, you can't just lump everybody in one convenient category.

No, actually, there really is no natural right not to be killed in one way or another. If you open the door to letting the State decide what level is too much for everyone, while knowing full well that everyone is different, then you have allowed them to eventually regulate everything, from how much you drink to how much and what you eat, whether you are allowed to smoke or not, being forced to do physical training, virtually there is no limit once you allow them to take the first step. If history has proven anything, it is the State will always seek to expand its power and to limit the rights of the people. Of course, they always have a "good" reason, so "reasonable" people will agree and willing trade liberty for a false sense of security.

Police state nonsense it what it is. I don't know about you guys down under, but here we never had police roadblocks, stopping people for absolutely no reason then demanding their papers, checking them for alcohol, searching their vehicles without probable cause, let alone a warrant. This type of behavior was considered abhorrent to the majority of Americans only 10 - 20 years ago, this was the stuff of movies about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. This is a clear example of conditioning people to accept what was once unacceptable.

Since, by definition, there can only be individual rights, there is no such thing as the right of society. This is another construct of government. That being said, I don't believe people should drive impaired and they should face big trouble if they do and cause harm to anyone or anything. I certainly am not arguing that I should be allowed on the road no matter what condition I'm in. But, I think education and responsibility should rule the day and things should be the way they used to be. That is, if an officer sees you are obviously impaired, he should pull you over and check you out. If he finds you to be unable to operate a vehicle, you should be arrested before you can cause harm to anyone else. This is the way it used to be here, I just think they have taken it too far by setting up roadblocks and harassing people for no reason at all. They have now started parking near bars at closing time and pulling people over as they leave. Another trick they recently started was actually going into bars and arresting people sitting in the bar if they were over the .08 limit. They have even done this in hotel bars where the patrons were having some drinks before retiring to their rooms. They had no intention of driving whatsoever, they were at their hotel for goodness sake, and they still got arrested for being over the limit.

Posted by: Bill on October 20, 2006 3:02 AM

Cynic once again proving to know nothing about the subject at hand. If I have your so-called "anger management" problem, why have I never shot anyone who pissed me off?

Posted by: Bill on October 20, 2006 4:33 AM

wow... that article was complete fantasy. this guy has no earthly clue about the subject. way to look like an idiot. nice reference to Micheal Moore by the way. thats a great source to verify an arguement: a man who lies and bends the truth until its so polluted its complete fiction. awesome job.

Posted by: Colin Adams on October 25, 2006 8:33 AM

Thank you Bill. Chivalry appreciated. :)

~Giny

Posted by: Giny on October 26, 2006 1:29 AM

Springfield High School Montgomery township, PA
On Dec. 13, 2006, a 16 year old boy angry with his father desides to commit a public suicide! He waits for his abusive father to fall asleep perhaps after drinking too much...the boy gets the key to the safe and unlocks it He takes out an AK 47 and saws off the stock so he can take it to school in the morning. The father has a basement full of Ammo.. all this is protected by the 2nd amendment. Do middle aged men really go hunting with AK 47 or are these gun purchased as some sort of fetish?
Because this father was negligent and too out of it to know where his gun safe keys were, his son is dead-the father should go to prison!!
go figure - More schools will have more deaths due to negligent fathers all protected by the 2nd amendment. this is B.S.
]

Posted by: Susan on December 16, 2006 8:55 AM

I heard that Australian schools are as bad as American schools. Also, your media is slightly more biased.
Both countries still has lots of sheeple.

Posted by: cat woman on February 20, 2007 12:52 AM

"The abundance of guns in the US did nothing to stop 9/11 or Pearl Harbour."

Now how exactly can you prevent a terrorist attack or a country from attacking you with a 9mm? Do you think that we all could of sat on our back porch and took potshots at a airliner that is traveling at 600 mph? O and also the fact that you can't have a gun on a plane also helps. So in the instance of 9/11 there was no way that the abundance of guns could have helped. Come on now lets be logical here. Guns are there to protect yourself from people who break into your house and try to take what you have worked for, and about "but I'm yet to see reports of people shooting back at their attackers" Do you know if the people even owned a gun. Or were they walking down a road where you aren't aloud to carry a gun and got attacked from behind? Maybe there is an abundance of school shootings because there are ravenous reporters and news stations waiting to broadcast the latest school shooting. People then see that and think hmmmmm I'm not really noticed now so maybe I'll take a gun and shot some of my classmates...Then people will know who I am. Maybe we would have less crime if the media didn't make such a big deal about it.